I am against any form of secret ballot. If a person cannot vote openly, then there is no real freedom. And also, a person cannot hide behind the voting system. He must represent his vote, either in an election, primary or referendum initiative.

This is momentous not only because of the decision, but because Brother Clarence diverged from Brother Antonin.

Clarence Thomas is an irredeemable troglodyte.

So... good news?

Don't be shy to call in Fisko as well, not that your analysis isn't reliable I"m sure.

Another loss for Washington's mean spirited Christian bullies. Hoorah!

Cue the massive BAWWWWW from Loveschild (if (s)he's still around), Alleged, and the Period Hivemind in 3...2...1...

@1 Unfortunately, there are many women who would/could not vote their conscience without a secret ballot. Their abusive & domineering husbands/fathers would cast their vote for them. And it's not just women. We've still got some work to do on the freedom front.
However, I agree with the principle of owning up to your participation in governance.

And another instance of Clarence Thomas being the worst SCOTUS member in recent memory. What a waste of a robe.

Just popped in to go "Woo!"

I will look forward to seeing if any of the people I work with signed that petition. And I certainly am looking forward to seeing if my boss signed it....

Dom, once the R-71 lists come out, the media will need to really and seriously dig into ANY reports of "attacks" or "threats" on bigots over this.

I'll bet anyone $10 we see at least one false flag anti-gay operation come out of this.

The best part is the "legal argument" in the dissent. It's not so much a legal argument as it is a "I think it should be this way" argument.

Overall, good news, I think. It remands the issue back to the lower courts, and, generally speaking, there is a good chance that, with the separate concurring opinions, the AG can make a solid argument as to why Doe v. Reed should apply to R-71

Funny, all the people on the right were screaming about how free speech wasn't with consequences when the Dixie Chicks used theirs. Suddenly they are worried about that?

@2: 10 points for using "irredeemable troglodyte" -- you made my morning. :)

I'm glad to see Scalia taking the stance he's taken here. Now and again it's refreshing to be on the right side of history, huh Ant?

Excellent! I'm stoked.

@ 1 - Oh yeah, because there's no difference between voting and actually legislating. None at all. That's why Congressional votes always take place in secret. Not like we have voting records for legislation, or, god forbid, television cameras in Congressional chambers.

Either you don't see the difference between this ruling and the secret ballots in public elections, in which case you clearly haven't thought this through, or you do see the difference but are choosing to ignore it for the sake of rhetorical posturing, in which case you're being disingenuous.

This wasn't even a close case - it came down 8-1, with Roberts writing the opinion. This didn't break down along left-right lines. And, honestly, this holding was probably a foregone conclusion by the time they even made it to oral arguments.

They keep expressing their persecution fantasies about "retribution". But so far, I've never heard of any actual instances of a gay person attacking an anti-gay activist (beyond nasty screeds on blogs or threats of boycotts). Surely they would trot out an anecdote or two, if they had them, to support the violent retribution argument? Why do they get away with perpetuating this ubsubstantiated fearmongering bullshit?

Let's place bets on how soon we see one of them carve a backwards "Q" on their own cheek.

I will be officially requesting PDFs and posting them next to the Fremont Bridge once they become available.

And personally will make sure those in my neighborhood are actual real people, given time available.

We can't function as a society with secrecy in our public petitions, or our laws.

@17 I would be amazed if you found a lot of people in the Ballard-Fremont-Wallingford region who signed this. If they owned a business in that area, it will be closed shortly. A couple days of a half-dozen sign toters outside the doors will be all it would take. No need for any sort of intimidation, just yank the dollar out of their hands.

@18:

Unfortunately, if that were to happen, these folks sound like the type who would point to exactly this sort of - completely legal - activity and scream, "AHA! We TOLD you this would happen! WR BEEIN PERSEKUTED!!!"

Face it, you just can't win when you're dealing with teh crazies...

I feel sorry for the folks that happen to have the same names as the ones that signed.

@19

Bob Jones, owner of Jones Pizza in Seattle, signed R-71 to endorse it. His name gets disclosed and tied to his ownership of Jones Pizza. Over the next year, the public decides to not order pizza there anymore. Bob's sales drop 40%.

Exactly how a free market capitalist society with freedom of speech and religion should operate, if you ask me. Live by the sword; die by the sword.

@21:

I agree, but I'll also bet you dollars to donut holes ole' "Bigot Bob" himself would point to the significant loss of business as incontrovertible "proof" that he's the victim of hate-crime level intimidation by teh Gays. After all, if'n his name hadn't been published, nobody would have known he signed the petition, and therefore they wouldn't have taken their trade elsewhere because they objected to his bigotry, which is why he didn't want his name published in the first place.

IME, if there's one thing these people are really good at, it's creating arguments out of completely circular logic.

@22 hopefully someone with the common sense and skill to do so behind multiple layers of anonimizers for the inevitable lawsuit that will hit.

Can we now send Protect Marriage the bill for wasting tax payer monies??

Good point @21.

That said, we should make sure it's the correct Bob Jones and that they didn't actually forge the signature. The crazies who pushed R-71 are convinced God said it's ok to Lie, Cheat, Steal, and Murder in His Name, so I wouldn't put that past them.

@24: Multiple layers of anonymizers you say? Possibly even SEVEN PROXIES???
http://static2.shoutem.com/pictures/PrJy…