Free Republic

These poor union members ought to make a list of all of the things in this legislation that hurt them personally/individually and then make a list of all of the things in the bill that hurt the union hierarchy.

How can they not see that their union bosses were willing to throw the membership under the bus in exchange for maintaining their personal grip on power?

Update, 5:09 p.m.:

It’s looking bad for Lisa Murkowski.

The latest count of absentees increased Miller’s lead to 1,469 votes. Fairbanks probably helped Miller, although the votes were also from Southeast Alaska and the Kenai Peninsula.

The Murkowski campaign was really counting on a big boost from Southeast.

It didn’t happen.

The latest batch was a count of 2,760 votes. It brings the total counted today to about 15,700 votes. Still awaiting some more Kenai absentee votes today.

Read more: http://community.adn.com/adn/node/152974#ixzz0yEjElGKA

posted, posted, posted, and um... posted.

Dang. I guess I was searching keywords instead of the title. Sorry everyone.

This will be the headline story of the New York Times tomorrow morning.

Of course. :)

The article also included a chart you'll also never see in the NYT.

Here's the larger image.

Who really cares about it being unconstitutional

How about a conservative version of “West Wing”?

Yep, all three of those outfits got TARP money.

Everyone big enough to buy CC is getting TARP money. They aren't really being given a choice.

I agree with you... but what they're saying is that they will rule on whether the process for amending the constitution was correctly followed.

IOW... they can't really say "we overturn the amendment", but they think they can say "you didn't actually amend it". A federal court could (at least in theory) say "that conflicts with the federal constitution and cannot be enforced" (just as if a state constitution banned abortion... it would still be in the constitution, but would be held invalid).

That's worked before, but looks set to fail here. One of the supporters of gay "marriage" on the court wasn't even willing to review the challenge... she only wanted to decide whether existing "marriages" were invalid given the amendment.

If the Prop 8 opponents lose this round, will it then go to the 9th Circus Court - er, Circuit Court? Gay "marriage" proponents are trying to avoid going the federal rout. They fear that the USSC would rule against them and set a precedent that would set them back decades