Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#166834 Nov 6, 2012
Straight from the NY Times archives December 20, 1998:

William Jefferson Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice today by a divided House of Representatives.

Twirl that jackasses!

The fun is wearing thin...
NonPsycho Mike DiRucci

Alhambra, CA

#166835 Nov 6, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton was impeached by the House on two charges. The first being perjury, and the second being obstruction of justice. He was found guilty.
Oy, this is boring and silly! How many times before it sinks in you dummies?
What dopes!
Dear, we have all agreed that he was impeached.

But you seem to be under some asinine assumption that he was found guilty. He was not. Impeachment is not a guilty verdict. Only the Senate can levy a verdict of guilt, and they DID NOT. Ergo, Clinton was not found guilty.

Seriously, get some help. This is relatively basic civics. It shouldn't be beyond your understanding.
shopping cart

Pulaski, TN

#166836 Nov 6, 2012
Give the gift "he" can't refuse.

Colostomy bags! Get your colostomy bags here!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#166838 Nov 6, 2012
NonPsycho Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear, we have all agreed that he was impeached.
But you seem to be under some asinine assumption that he was found guilty. He was not. Impeachment is not a guilty verdict. Only the Senate can levy a verdict of guilt, and they DID NOT. Ergo, Clinton was not found guilty.
Seriously, get some help. This is relatively basic civics. It shouldn't be beyond your understanding.
Bill Clinton was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice on Dec 19, 1998.

What a dope.

Seriously, get some help.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#166839 Nov 6, 2012
If homosexuals have the right to marriage equality, why don't Muslims have the right to polygamy?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#166840 Nov 6, 2012
NonPsycho Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear, we have all agreed that he was impeached.
But you seem to be under some asinine assumption that he was found guilty. He was not. Impeachment is not a guilty verdict. Only the Senate can levy a verdict of guilt, and they DID NOT. Ergo, Clinton was not found guilty.
Seriously, get some help. This is relatively basic civics. It shouldn't be beyond your understanding.
He was impeached in the House, which means he was found GUILTY of "a high crime, or misdemeanor". After being found guilty and impeached in the House the case then goes to the Senate. It is presented in the Senate by members of the House that are called the House Prosecutors. The Senate part of the trial is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The purpose of this part of the trial is to determine whether or not the President will be removed from office. The same thing, all though over a different issue, also happen to President Andrew Johnson in the 1860's.

The end.

What a dope!

Funny stuff!
Reduclosed

Covina, CA

#166841 Nov 6, 2012
Mike Reduclosed et a new handle your old one is all used up!
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#166842 Nov 6, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean your mistake, miss thing. I said Clinton was impeached on Dec. 19, 1998 and he was. Prove he wasn't or stop pestering me.
Twirl that toots! Then eat crow!
Fun!
It's a matter of history. It's not a secret. Evidently everyone but YOU knows what impeachment means.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#166843 Nov 6, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Bill Clinton was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice on Dec 19, 1998.
No he wasn't.
Winston Smith

Woodbridge, VA

#166844 Nov 6, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Right! So your argument against the republicans fail! Scooter!
Do you think every filibuster ends in a successful cloture? Eh, scooter? No, they result in much time wasting, which is the point of pulling one off. Try harder next time!
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#166845 Nov 6, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
He was impeached in the House, which means he was found GUILTY of "a high crime, or misdemeanor".
Nope. Doesn't work that way. Look it up silly and stop embarrassing yourself.
JusticeServed

Covina, CA

#166846 Nov 6, 2012
These sheets winders really do need to go.

Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and some of the most powerful corporate special interests in the country.

They have dumped tens of millions (maybe even hundreds of millions) into their last ditch attempt to swift boat President Obama and progressive candidates.
NonPsycho Mike DiRucci

Alhambra, CA

#166847 Nov 6, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
He was impeached in the House, which means he was found GUILTY of "a high crime, or misdemeanor". After being found guilty and impeached in the House the case then goes to the Senate. It is presented in the Senate by members of the House that are called the House Prosecutors. The Senate part of the trial is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The purpose of this part of the trial is to determine whether or not the President will be removed from office. The same thing, all though over a different issue, also happen to President Andrew Johnson in the 1860's.
The end.
What a dope!
Funny stuff!
No dear, he was ACCUSED of "a high crime, or misdemeanor". Specifically: 1. Perjury and 2. Obstruction of Justice.

Had he been "guilty", as you say, then the Senate's role (which it is not), would be to merely pass punishiment, but that is not the cast. It is the Senate that sits in judgement and passes guilt or innocence. And it was the Senate that aquitted Clinton of both charges.

Speaking of which, here is how the senate voted for aquittal on both charges:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/0...

Damn! You are one stupid mo-fo!
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#166848 Nov 6, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
If homosexuals have the right to marriage equality, why don't Muslims have the right to polygamy?
Gee I don't know. Maybe because apple pies aren't chocolate cakes?
Winston Smith

Woodbridge, VA

#166849 Nov 6, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
If homosexuals have the right to marriage equality, why don't Muslims have the right to polygamy?
They do, sort of. It doesn't get the mongs all frothy mouthed like homosexuals though.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296493... #
Big D

Modesto, CA

#166850 Nov 6, 2012
He isnít going to comprehend it

Impeached by the house = accused

You are saying he was accused of something, but the trail failed in the senate where such accusations are tried.

If you are going to live in our country you should learn something about our laws.

An accusation is not a verdict, impeachment was voted for in the house, and failed in the senate.
Winston Smith

Glen Allen, VA

#166851 Nov 6, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
No he wasn't.
Yes, he was. It was unsuccessful though. As in the House found him guilty and forwarded it to the Senate for trial, which failed dismally, and predictably, for the Republican party. Who cares if it cost us tax payers a bucket of cash to look at the president's junk, eh?

The House votes on it. In this fashion the House did find Clinton guilty of the charges. The Senate holds a formal hearing in trial form.

Technically speaking, Nixon wasn't impeached as he resigned before the entire House got to vote on the full articals of impeachment.

What you guys are doing is arguing semantics, poorly. DiRucci is correct.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#166852 Nov 6, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, he was. It was unsuccessful though. As in the House found him guilty and forwarded it to the Senate for trial, which failed dismally, and predictably, for the Republican party. Who cares if it cost us tax payers a bucket of cash to look at the president's junk, eh?
The House votes on it. In this fashion the House did find Clinton guilty of the charges. The Senate holds a formal hearing in trial form.
Technically speaking, Nixon wasn't impeached as he resigned before the entire House got to vote on the full articals of impeachment.
What you guys are doing is arguing semantics, poorly. DiRucci is correct.
The House voted to bring articles of impeachment before the Senate. The Senate ACQUITTED.

Who ever said Nixon was impeached?
Them people

Covina, CA

#166853 Nov 6, 2012
Is it true the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and Grover Norquist along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are UN-MERICAN in orgin?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#166854 Nov 6, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, he was. It was unsuccessful though. As in the House found him guilty and forwarded it to the Senate for trial, which failed dismally, and predictably, for the Republican party. Who cares if it cost us tax payers a bucket of cash to look at the president's junk, eh?
The House votes on it. In this fashion the House did find Clinton guilty of the charges. The Senate holds a formal hearing in trial form.
Technically speaking, Nixon wasn't impeached as he resigned before the entire House got to vote on the full articals of impeachment.
What you guys are doing is arguing semantics, poorly. DiRucci is correct.
The house does not have the power to "find him guilty" Only to make the accusation, which is tried in the senate which has the power of a judge in a courtroom.

Nixon resigned because the impending impeachment was going to easily go through both houses. and he knew it, he would rather resign than be forced out by impeachment.

Clinton knew the impeachment was going to fail so did not need to resign, and he was right, it failed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
public officials violating federal laws 3 hr Un agenda 21 and ... 3
the music thread (Apr '12) Sat Musikologist 19
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Sat ikestubbs 1,535
News Letters: Charter application superior (Jan '11) May 21 Yin Simons 13
News Taking extraordinary measures to wear an extrao... May 18 outtogether 2
News Police: Armed robbery at Santa Cruz sandwich sh... May 11 bump 1
News Business on hold for P.G. pot club (Mar '10) May 9 Mike 8
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]