Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 347 of 759 (694689)
03-27-2013 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by subbie
03-27-2013 12:19 AM


Re: Supreme Court Oral Argument
The early analyses I've seen strongly suggest Kennedy wants to punt it.
I think all of the Justices are seriously considering doing that. Once the state declined to defend its own law, the standing of any one to challenge the law is extremely suspect. The court has already taken on a replacement case.
I have hopes that Chief Justice Brown[1] won't want to get on the wrong side of history, but I think it more likely that the Court will punt the case.
Yet another landmark case today. This one challenging DOMA. This can be framed as a Feds vs. States case. What will Scalia-Thomas do with that?
Footnote ABE:
[1] Should be Chief Justice Roberts. Thanks ooh-child for the correction.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by subbie, posted 03-27-2013 12:19 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by ooh-child, posted 03-27-2013 11:48 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 349 of 759 (694697)
03-27-2013 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by ooh-child
03-27-2013 11:48 AM


Contrite response.
Yes, I'm an idiot. Thank you.
Chief Justice Roberts.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by ooh-child, posted 03-27-2013 11:48 AM ooh-child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by ooh-child, posted 03-27-2013 12:34 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 366 of 759 (701934)
06-27-2013 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by subbie
06-27-2013 7:39 PM


Re: Supreme Court punts
The California Supreme Court, in response to a questions from the Ninth Circuit, specifically said that this group did have the authority under California law to represent the state on challenges to Prop 8.
Ah, but California law regarding standing really does not matter.
The Supreme Court must use federal rules for determining whether the parties involved had standing and to determine whether there is a justiciable controversy. California's ruling on the question of standing is interesting, but irrelevant to the case at the SC. The Supreme Court literally does not have the authority to decide cases where there is no standing under federal law.
Scalia and crew are also powerless to overturn a California court ruling on issues that do not involve federal law.
It's a close question, but I think the SC ruling that there was no standing is consistent with their past rulings.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by subbie, posted 06-27-2013 7:39 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by subbie, posted 06-27-2013 11:30 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 368 of 759 (701960)
06-28-2013 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by subbie
06-27-2013 11:30 PM


Re: Supreme Court punts
The state of California has standing to defend any law challenged as unconstitutional. The only question is whether the parties to this case have the authority to represent California in this proceeding.
I'm not disputing whether California law allows . In order to challenge the California ruling in federal Court, you must have standing to be in federal court. No federal standing means no valid appeal.
Who has authority to represent the state's interests is a question of state law.
Your premise is simply wrong. California law cannot subvert federal law. In an appeal in federal court, standing is a matter of federal law, not state law. I'm always ready to point out Scalia's gobbledygook, but he didn't actually write the opinion this time. Roberts did. Scalia agreed, but so did Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.
I agree that it is a close question, and the four Justices in the minority agree with you. What undermines standing for me is my belief that ultimately the parties were just ordinary citizens and the general electorate suffers no injury when the rights of another person are vindicated. This is particularly the case for the right to marry. The citizens' recourse in this matter to elect officials who will support proposition 8 if that is what the majority wants.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by subbie, posted 06-27-2013 11:30 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by subbie, posted 06-28-2013 12:16 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 370 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2013 12:18 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 384 of 759 (701994)
06-28-2013 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by subbie
06-28-2013 12:16 PM


Re: Supreme Court punts
However, it is also well-settled that the state has standing to appeal any decision declaring any portion of its constitution unconstitutional. Do you agree with this?
Sure. I agree with that.
Question 2: Who has the authority to represent the state? This is a question of state law.
Here I disagree. Standing before the federal court is simply not a question of state law. If the governor, or his designee (say the state attorney general) or says that citizen Y can represent the state, that's would pose a much closer question. But in this case we have something different. We have a CA court saying that some ordinary citizens can represent California. Well it turns out that for federal standing, the California court was incorrect. Ordinary citizen Y does not represent California for the purpose of pursuing a matter in federal court, they only represent themselves.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by subbie, posted 06-28-2013 12:16 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by subbie, posted 06-28-2013 6:48 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 389 of 759 (702042)
06-29-2013 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by subbie
06-28-2013 7:33 PM


Re: Supreme Court punts
Standing in federal court is and always will be a question of federal law for federal courts to construe. However, the identity of the person or persons that a state designates to represent its interests is a question of state law.
You are simply asserting the point that is in dispute and are repeating the same argument as if it has not been responded to. I'll respond with a two fold argument.
1. I don't doubt that California officials could designate someone to represent its interest, but that's not exactly what happened here. A CA court simply ruled that the defendant's represented California. Well federal law does not allow that option. It is particularly farcial because the CA executives refused to defend the law. Under those circumstance, where does a CA court derive the ability to circumvent federal law.
2. The federal rules still apply. Just as the state cannot force the Supreme Court to accept a disbarred attorney as their chosen representative, the state cannot circumvent federal standing rules by designating an ineligible party as their representative. Regardless of what the CA Supreme Court said, it was pretty clear that at best the parties represented part of the electorate, but the electorate is NOT the state. The state is represented by CA executive and legislative branch, and neither of those parties picked someone to represent them.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by subbie, posted 06-28-2013 7:33 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by subbie, posted 06-29-2013 1:31 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 391 of 759 (702055)
06-29-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by subbie
06-28-2013 7:52 PM


Re: Breaking news update
As I write this, same sex marriages in California have resumed.
Good.
I'm curious about the state of the law in CA from an academic standpoint. As I understand it, there is only a state district court decision that prop 8 is unconstitutional. What is the state of the law in every other CA state district? What happens if a different district court rules differently?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by subbie, posted 06-28-2013 7:52 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by subbie, posted 06-29-2013 11:19 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 394 of 759 (702098)
07-01-2013 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by subbie
06-29-2013 11:19 PM


Res judicata, maybe...
Another district couldn't decide it a different way because if another suit were filed, it would be dismissed as res judicata.
I disagree. I don't think it is clear that res judicata applies. For one thing, the state need not be the defendant. The original defendants were county officials plus the governor and attorney general. The plaintiffs were one set of citizens. The state may or may not intervene to defend the constitutionality of the law, but it is not clear to me that either claim or issue preclusion would prevent a California citizen from suing a different county official in California courts as long as that count official were not subject to the jurisdiction of the original court. After all, there are no appellate rulings yet.
And let's say that the new district court rules similar to the first state court. The plaintiff would have the option of appealing to the CA state supreme court rather than to the 9th circuit. In fact, all we really know is that the plaintiff cannot appeal to a federal court. The US Supreme Court of course would not take an appeal.
And that is not just my opinion.
If the Supreme Court Decides the Proposition 8 Sponsors Lack Standing, What Will Happen to Same-Sex Marriage in California? | Vikram David Amar | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia
quote:
But what about the county clerks in other counties, counties that weren’t named in the Proposition 8 lawsuit in Judge Walker’s court? If they feel bound by Judge Walker’s order, and none complains, then perhaps Proposition 8 will not be enforced at all, and marriage will be available to all qualified same-sex couples in the state.
Yet, there are a few wrinkles here. First, some individual who supports Proposition 8 might sue one of these county clerks and ask a court to clarify that Judge Walker’s injunction does not apply to that clerk. The plaintiff here might argue that the clerk in question is not bound by Judge Walker’s injunction because he, the clerk, was not a party to that lawsuit and is not under the control or supervision (the term Judge Walker used) of any of the parties (such as the Governor.) Any such suit would probably be brought in state court, because it’s not obvious who would have standing in federal court to object to a clerk’s issuing of same-sex marriage licenses.
For Marriage Advocates, a Day to Celebrate | The Recorder
quote:
Some law professors said Wednesday it could reasonably be argued that the injunction only applies to Alameda and Los Angeles counties, the legal entities that denied the couples marriage licenses. "I'm not saying it's a winning argument," said UC-Hastings civil procedure expert David Levine. "But it's not frivolous by any means."
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by subbie, posted 06-29-2013 11:19 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by dwise1, posted 07-01-2013 3:09 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 396 by AZPaul3, posted 07-01-2013 5:53 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 401 of 759 (702244)
07-02-2013 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by dwise1
07-01-2013 3:09 PM


Re: Res judicata, maybe...
But on what grounds would they sue if Prop 8 has been struck down? As I understand it, Judge Walker ruled Prop 8 to be unconstitutional thus striking it down, the appellate court upheld Judge Walker's ruling,
The appellate decision is vacated. What is left is a district court decision that does not necessarily apply to the entire state of California.
ABE:
Correction. I erred in saying that the litigation started in state court.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by dwise1, posted 07-01-2013 3:09 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 402 of 759 (702245)
07-02-2013 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by AZPaul3
07-01-2013 5:53 PM


Re: Res judicata, maybe...
The original suit was brought to the Federal District Court. Any other suit seeking to overturn the Federal injunction ordered would need to be brought to the Federal courts.
Yes, you are right. The original suit was in federal court. Any future suit brought by ordinary citizens would have to be in state court since there is no federal standing.
The issue is that US district courts can only issue rulings that bind parties that are subject to its jurisdiction. The rulings of a district are not binding precedent even in the same jurisdiction; in completely different jurisdictions between completely different parties, it is of only persuasive authority.
. Under California law the marriage laws are state laws and the county clerks act as "agents" of the state
The sources I've look at seem to think that's at least an open issue. I agree that if the county clerks are bound to be agents of the state, then res judicata would end the dispute.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by AZPaul3, posted 07-01-2013 5:53 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by AZPaul3, posted 07-02-2013 6:51 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 404 of 759 (702256)
07-02-2013 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by AZPaul3
07-02-2013 6:51 PM


Re: Res judicata, maybe...
I may get surprised but I cannot see where any state court action can affect this in any way. If some clerk in the Eastern Federal District decides to not issue a license the couple files suit in that Federal court, not the State court. This is, after all, a Federal Constitutional issue.
State courts can and do rule on decide federal constitution issues. In fact, state courts can rule on any issue except for those that are reserved only for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Those decisions can usually be appealed to federal court, but the plaintiffs have the option to start in state court.
The scenario I have in mind is some group of ordinary citizens seeking to enjoin a county clerk from issuing marriage licenses using a local state court. But in reflecting on the issue, I see that there is no barrier to the sued party appealing any decision to the 9th circuit. It is only the citizens group that lacks standing to appeal. Looks like I made much ado about nothing.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by AZPaul3, posted 07-02-2013 6:51 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 406 of 759 (702276)
07-03-2013 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
07-03-2013 11:58 AM


Re: How does the striking down of DOMA affect cities?
Well, the State law says it is not okay, therefore no Federal benefits are required to be given to those with same-sex civil unions in the town of Bisbee."
I think that's a great question. I would suggest that until Congress does something about the law, the executive branch has a substantial amount of latitude in responding to what the Supreme Court has done. Marital status affects an enormous number of things (e.g. immigration law, tax law, social security benefits, federal health and survivor benefits, tons of military benefits) I expect that Congress won't be happy with the executive branch having that kind of power and will legislate in this area pretty quickly.
Meanwhile, I can imagine that in some cases, but not all cases, showing a valid marriage license will be enough to access federal benefits. The answer might well depend on what the president and his cabinet folk want the answer to be.
ABE:
Civil unions are most likely not quite marriages under federal law. My answer does not take that into account. And my state is redder than yours on this issue. NC's constitution prevents recognition of gay marriage or civil unions.
And then there is this:
EvC Forum: Login
quote:
Gay marriage proponents marked another victory Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeals from Arizona and Nevada involving the rights of same-sex couples.
The justices let stand an appeals court ruling striking down an Arizona law that made state employees in same-sex relationships ineligible for domestic partner benefits. The Nevada case was a challenge to the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The court did not elaborate on the reason for not taking up the cases.
Note here that the state prohibition on gays to marry created a situation where denying state benefits to unmarried gay couples was found to be discriminatory. How blue is that?? .
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-03-2013 11:58 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-03-2013 2:39 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 412 of 759 (702303)
07-04-2013 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
07-03-2013 10:59 PM


Re: How does the striking down of DOMA affect cities?
So, with the prior case decisions, it is only a matter of time before marriage equality becomes the normal in America, which is definitely a good thing because it removes one more layer of the bigotry many nations still hold on to. Do you see the change in culture occurring extremely rapidly now or will it still take a good amount of time for the full change to occur?
In some states, like NC and AZ, where there is a constitution provision against gay marriage as well as an electorate that wants it that way, I don't see a rapid path away from bigotry.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-03-2013 10:59 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2013 2:19 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 413 of 759 (702304)
07-04-2013 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
07-03-2013 2:39 PM


Re: How does the striking down of DOMA affect cities?
I think I would have to look into how the Federal Government sees Civil Unions. Well, from what I could find quickly DOMA did specify against civil unions so, I would think that these cases would also apply to the newly available Federal benefits
Arguably, the part of DOMA that was overruled seems to have applied only to marriages unless a state defines their civil unions to be marriages. I don't know if any state does that, but it is difficult to imagine a state that does not allow gay marriage doing that.
quote:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
On the other hand, the part of DOMA that was not overruled applies to any relationship "treated as a marriage". In my opinion, the in force part of DOMA is much more clearly unconstitutional than was the part that was overruled.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-03-2013 2:39 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 415 of 759 (702316)
07-04-2013 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by dwise1
07-04-2013 2:19 AM


Re: How does the striking down of DOMA affect cities?
hat of the ruling on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia? How did that play out in all the other state
The Supreme Court has the power to make a Loving v Virginia ruling that would end the sorry current state of affairs. I simply have difficulty believing they will do so, or that the makeup of the court is likely to change favorably any time soon.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2013 2:19 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024