"The campaign manager of this initiative had his family sleep in his living room because of the threats."
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
By being transparent? What???
I think he mixed up his subjects. In the current case, it's the KKK members who want to continue to create hate policy without their names getting attached to it.
How is this possible?!?!?!?
(great reporting btw)
It's also unlike those cases in that blacks fighting for their civil rights never asked for anonymity. In fact, they did everything they could to get their personal voices out into the public domain. They knew threats were a possibility and fought openly despite them.
Maybe it was because of "threats." Or maybe it was just because he's a paranoid crazy person.
Also, pretty bizarre that he would even venture to bring up the Klu Klux Klan. I seem to recall something about wearing white hoods to keep their identities secret.
Based on my, admittedly somewhat limited, following of the supreme court, oral arguments often involve laughter, usually from one of the justices using hyperbole or humor to make a point or knock down an argument.
jake perhaps next time you should poke thomas and get proof of life.
jake, next time poke thomas and get proof of life.
good work. for once.
Sing it with me all: "Land of the free....................................."
"Clarence Thomas To Other Supreme Court Justices: Be Quiet"
That said, I hate CT in every other regard.
It's 'tenet'. 'central tenet', *not* 'central tenant'.
Unless someone is paying rent to live in Rob McKenna's argument, of course, which would be...I don't know...kinda creepy?
And thank you.
According to Victoria Tennant.
A door which was opened by Bopp's employers when they started telling lies about harassment and then backed it up with a Supreme Court case. They have no one to blame but themselves if this prediction comes true.
Consultants would start to promote illegal and criminal activity? What?
But your point @28 is valid: lying that intimidation is being done by the other side is clearly a strategy. Although there *is* the reputation-tarnish problem of crying wolf all the time.
I hope Scalia sticks to his guns on his prediction in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent that that ruling would make it impossible to prohibit gay marriage! Just wait until Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Prop 8) hits the court, he'll sing a different tune.
Although a pro-disclosure ruling in this case could significantly affect the future of Washington State initiatives, it is unclear that the ruling would benefit liberals over conservatives. For example, a pro-disclosure ruling in this case might make it harder for activists to find signatures for the Washington State marijuana legalization initiative, which is trying to make it on the ballot later this year.