Chris Matthews NAILS Kerry and Edwards' press spokesmen on HARDBALL

HARDBALL | 2/24/2004

[sinkspur]

I know everybody hates Chris Matthews around here, but he skewered Steve Elmendorf (representing Kerry) and some mustachioed guy who represents Edwards.

Basically, he asked them if either of their candidates would go to the wall to defend a state that chose to outlaw gay marriage in that state.

Neither of these guys would comment, and Matthews told them they were cowards, that the "states rights" talk was a lie, as no Democrat ever talks about states rights.

Both men were left stuttering and unable to answer the question.

Matthews said later that they couldn't say anything because they were beholden to the gay rights agenda.

Now, Pat Buchanan is suggesting that the DOMA be passed again, with the proviso that the Supreme Court has no authority to rule on its constitutionality. This would leave the decision to the states, but would prevent the Supremes from overturning it.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" but he could never get an answer out of either of these guys, because they knew that's where he was going."

Matthews said that President Bush hit a political bull's eye today and he was obviously frustrated that Kerry and his people do not seem to realize this.

[McGavin999]

OK, then how about we all get together and file a class action lawsuit against the judicial branch of the United States of America for failing to do their duty as interpreters of the law and for usurping the duties of the legislative branch? :o)

[MEG33]

There's a good point.I am sick of the judiciary making law,going against the will of the people.They have become the maker of laws and the Congress allows it because of lack of will,lack of spine.The ninth circuit is one example..

[Petronski]

Well, believe me gentlemen, I am a pessimist at heart and I don't like what I fear would happen, so I hope you are (both) right. And I have enjoyed hashing this out with you.

As pessimistic as I am about all of this, that's how certain I have become that nothing less than an amendment will do.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

I can read and you can read but what would stop the SCOTUS from just ignoring it?

And don't act like they wouldn't. They'd just look to Europe to give them a reason as we need to look to other nations to brng out laws into alignment with the rest of the world. Or so they say.

[CFC__VRWC]

Look at this from Matthews' perspective. He sees the gay marriage issue as one that has the potential to drive the democratic candidate right over the cliff. As much as Matthews and his Rat cronies spin this and try to hoodwink the public into believing that the majority of the public is in favor of gay marriage, the rational ones (including Chrissy) know that the exact opposite is true, and that any candidate who comes out emphatically in favor of gay marriage is going to pay for that position at the polls come November. I think Chris is trying to throw the democratic campaigns, especially Kerry's, a lifeline here, and was all but begging the guy to take it. Sounds like he took a pass, and that tells me that Kerry will (surprise, surprise) try to come down on every side of the issue.

[William McKinley]

Oh.

I agree an amendment is the way to go. I think it is a good thing that the clause in the Constitution limiting judicial jurisdiction goes unused. I'd hate to see it applied to things like, say, a gun control law or a law outlawing political dissent.

Better to leave it unused.

I was just pointing out that technically, Buchanan is right that it can be done, and that it has been done.

An amendment is the way to go, and one is needed. To protect the very concepts of federalism and states' rights that Kerry and the Dems are claiming to be worried about.

[McGavin999]

I disagree with you. They may have no jurisdiction over the term marriage, but they would have jurisdiction over equal protection. If you think these black robed monarchs would back off of this one inch you're dreaming.

They wouldn't even bother to look at what is being done to society, they would only care about their power base.

[Petronski]

You are now going to see that backlash, suppressed for decades, and it's going to knock your socks off I think.

Vive le backlash!

[McGavin999]

The 9th circuit is the perfect example. Most of the states under their jurisdiction absolutely detest it, but there is nothing that is done, year after year after year.

The thing is, the debate is being joined and the entire country will get involved. NOTHING will make the American people pay attention faster than the words "Amend the Constitution".

People will pay attention to WHY it is necessary to amend the Constitution. If nothing else comes of it, this whole problem will be resolved and the judicial activism will be resolved as well. Nothing will happen unless you have the entire country joined in the debate.

[William McKinley]

They may have no jurisdiction over the term marriage, but they would have jurisdiction over equal protection.

No, what they would have jurisdiction over, or not, is a piece of law.

If the Congress says they can't evaluate it, they can't evaluate it at all, even to see if it violates equal protection. Even to see if it violates the first amendment.

[You Dirty Rats]

It IS possible for a Constitutional Amendment to be unconstitutional.

Article V stipulates that no Amendment can deprive any State of equal Representation in the Senate. (The only other area off-limits to amendment relates to slavery issues before 1808).

Also, the 18th Amendment is unconstitutional, as it was repealed by the 21st.

And I suppose a REALLY activist SCOTUS could just vote to declare a perfectly valid Amendment unconstitutional just because they can, and then offer up some total BS argument about the Amendment being inconsistent with the totality of our society, or unfair to some group, or against some EU Court decision. Sandra Dee O'Connor would be capable of it. Whether the country would stand for it is another question.

As to the lesbian law professor's ranting, I think she is out of her mind.

[Maigrey]

D***. What is his agenda? There's gotta be a catch.

[MEG33]

The gays have gone"a bridge too far" in San Francisco.The mayor's flaunting of the law has wakened the sleeping giant.

[johnb838]

Hmmm... Glenn Beck was talking a few weeks ago about a case where a man was suing his wife for divorce on grounds of adultery. She had left him for another woman. The judge threw out the adultery petition on the grounds that a woman couldn't consummate adultery with another woman.

[amongolian]

The full faith and credit clause cuts both ways. Just because person is licensed to cut hair or practice medicine in one state doesn't mean he can practice in any state. If he or she should cross state lines and take out an appendix he has broken the law and even should he flee to the state where he is licensed to practice medicine that state would have to eztradite him if the offended state requested extradition.

BTW I believe there is a huge body of case law on this some stemming from the days of slavery. If a slave flees to a free state is he automatically emancipated etc etc. In fact was one of the issues responsible for the founging of the Republican Party. Read up on the Booth War in Ripon County Wisconsin if you want to see exactly how fired up people could get over an activist judiciary.

[McGavin999]

I'm not willing to risk that William. Our judicial branch has been totally out of control for years and each day it gets worse. I do not want to face the possibility of the same kind of anarchy that California is facing while we are trying to fight for our very lives against terrorists.

[sinkspur]

There MAY be a replay of this at 10 pm CST on MSNBC, although I think there also may be some coverage of the Western caucuses also. So, it may not be.

[johnb838]

It should be pointed out that the SCOTUS has no way of enforcing its decisions. The Executive branch is the only one that can actually send out the enforcers to make a decision happen. If we as a people decide to ignore and marginalize the judiciary, we could do it.

[cyncooper]

Yes, I'm well aware that Matthews once worked for Tip O'Neill and his wife is a tv anchor.

I've long been aghast at her position because he has said several very interesting things about his "Queen Kathleen's" thoughts on things.

He is torn, though, but as arasina points out, tends well to the left. But he IS able to be persuaded to see the right side of things, but it often takes a lot of effort and beating him about the head.