Nope:
A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

It’s ‘ex post facto law’ (from the Latin for “after the fact”), or ‘retroactive law’, ya dummy.

Why give the opposition a running start?
I can use the Google! :)

Tell me more!

You must have been a very hungry child. It’s only cereal that can’t be served until breakfast is over and you’ve washed the dishes. :)

I haven’t really investigated them, but Sunstein was the only name that made me go “uh-oh.”

I ate that cereal as a kid I think.

I agree, but after bush v Gore, anything is possible!

Where did you see a list of possible appointees?

Let’s hope congress does a better job of confirmation than they did with roberts and alito.

I can see obama first appointing a good person, then congress bouncing a couple of them, and him finally saying “ok” to a homophobe just to get them confirmed.

It’s not like reid or lieberman love the queers or anything…

It’s a box for them. Ex post facto if the do, two classes of citizens if they dont.

I am not a lawyer myself, but I read Lawrence very carefully. The five justices studiously avoided the issue, while Sandra Day O’Connor joined the judgement, while making a point of slamming marriage. Of course, that could just mean that they agreed not to address the issue, but the logic of Lawrence would have be turned on its head not to decide on the side of the Angels.

Of course, I’ve seen Kennedy make bewildering about-faces before, so nothing is certain.

I’ve seen the list of possible Obama appointees (all speculation, of course), and I didn’t notice any obvious flaming homophobes listed, though I would be deeply concerned about Cass Sunstein’s views on free speech and executive power.

ex post facto. And such laws are forbidden explicitly in the body of the Consitution itself. It’s a good argument.

Gee, given Kmiec’s support of obama, and his uber catholicism, are you surprised?

Maybe he knows something we dont know about obama’s supreme court appointees if Ruth really does retire. Maybe he thinks if they hold out long enough, obama will turn the court against equal justice for us.

I think that is how they are planning to fight the jerks who want to nullify the existing gay marriages in California. If they are allowed to nullify them, then it’s an after the fact law, which has never been allowed. (dammit, cant think of the legal term for that)

If they are not nullified, then it presents a good case for overturning PropHate because it creates two unequal classes of marriage.

I’m not a lawyer and dont even play one on tv, but that’s how I remember the discussion about how the pro-gay marriage folks plan to fight in CA.

And as for the Supremes as they stand, hell, they’ve allowed bush to spy on citizens, make a joke of habeas corpus, threw an election in Bush v Gore, and essentially overturned Brown v Board of Education so…

What do you think? I know there may not have been specific cases that I cited, but you know what I mean. I think Lawrence v Texas was a minor blip of sanity before they were reminded by their republican masters who they worked for.

But given obama’s homophobia, I’m not sure anymore that I trust his Supreme Court appointees or Congress’ confirmation of any sane people, despite democrat control. If he appoints wingnuts, like I’m now afraid he will, or if Congress will only confirm wingnuts based on a gay marriage litmus test, I think I’d rather take my chances with the current court.

I had high hopes that obama would set the Supreme Court back on the road to equal justice for all.

But given his distrubing signs of wingnuttia and homophobia, I dont trust him.

Dammit.

Here’s a thought, though: As scary and unpredictable as Anthony Kennedy may be, I think there are five votes on the Supreme Court now, for overturning these state amendments and laws banning marriage to one class of consenting adults. Both Dred Scott and Lawrence v. Texas come to mind.

Thoughts?

COME ON, 1000! :-)

No thanks. N

So bigotbawks, where is your husband and your job?

I have a wife and a business, just like you.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the message is….

It’s All Over For You!!!

Oh yeah, I’m sure you’re laughing, hope you are better at that than you are lying.

I’m not at the rebellious stage and I laughed too.
I laughed all day.
You son hopefully will grow up a little and realize only immature jerks challenge blog strangers to meet in a parking lot.
The only thing that would have been more foolish, at least for me, would be to take any of it the least bit seriously and show up. That is embarrassing to even think about being that childish.
I think at your age BlueJay you are lost, lets hope your son amounts to more and can grow up.

When I’ve said I want to be saddled with neither?

WHY would I want a husband? WHY would I want a job if I can be successfully self employed?

WHY?

That phrase “cant keep a husband or a job” seems to apply to bigotbawks too.

He claims to have neither?

WHY?

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s so easy to make the poodle dance.

And who thinks grmie would find room on her plate if obama, were, just imagine here, to keep his promises about repealing DOMA and DADT?

I bet that economic plate would empty out pretty quickly if that were the case.

But she’s not in any danger. They were empty promises. Wake me when he actually, ya know, does something to support equality.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No, you deliberately lied and engaged in bearing false witness to prove you were a coward.

Remind us again, which of christ’s words condone that?

Hypocrit.

Tippy proves with every post that we are right when we say cons like bigotbox define “slutty” as anyone who’s getting more than them.

And that includes most of you.

My son is not particularly interested in politics.

YOU have changed that.

Not necessarily as to politics. My son just does not like bullies.

My Christmas gift to you and yours is one you have given me.

My son, a selfish teenager, now CARES about people.

Because I tell him it is right and give him examples of those who feel otherwise.

He will be weighing in from time to time here. I am SO optimistic about this! We don’t have but one blogger younger than 30.

Electric youth cons. It’s gonna fry you.