Tag Archives: california

‘Who Hates Nudes?’: Mad Men Recapped

John Slattery, ladies and gentlemen! The silver-topped_Mad Men_ regular made his series directing debut Sunday with flying colors — both figuratively and literally, as the episode was also among the best-shot in three-plus seasons to date. And they didn’t even have to slum in California or introduce outrageous new subplots to do it. Somebody! Unjump the shark!

Excerpt from:
‘Who Hates Nudes?’: Mad Men Recapped

Open Thread: House Report Rips White House ‘Propaganda’

The ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently criticized the administration’s attempts to promote its policies , alleging that some may even be illegal.  Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, is blasting the Obama administration in a  new report , charging the administration has engaged in an “unprecedented” propaganda effort to sell the president’s health care and other policies. “Under one-party rule in 2009, the White House used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the President’s agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives,” the report says… Issa’s report cites as evidence for his charges 11 separate episodes where the report says theadministration abused taxpayer resources and, in some cases, violated federal law. Those include well-known flash points like expensive road signs touting economic progress under the economic stimulus law and an attempt in the early months of the administration to coordinate taxpayer-funded art to boost the president’s legislative priorities. But it also includes a number of lesser-known episodes including a government-funded online web form allowing users to urge members of Congress to pass health care legislation and the shady online practices of a Justice Department spokeswoman. Propaganda or just P.R.? Are Issa’s accusations exaggerating the problem, or is there some serious malfeasance here?

Read the original post:
Open Thread: House Report Rips White House ‘Propaganda’

Lucerne Valley crash 2010

An off-road vehicle travels up the hill Sunday, Aug. 15, 2010 where an off-road truck went out of control into a crowd at the California 200 Saturday night in Lucerne Valley, in the California desert, pinning bodies beneath it and sending others flying into a chaotic cloud of dust in a crash that killed eight people, injuring 12 authorities and witnesses said Sunday. An off-road truck sailed off a jump and hurtled into a crowd at a race in the Mojave desert, pinning bodies beneath it and sendin

See more here:
Lucerne Valley crash 2010

Martin Kaymer girlfriend Rina picture

Martin Kaymer of Germany is congratulated by his wife Rina after winning the playoff against Bubba Watson of the U.S. to win the 92nd PGA Golf Championship at Whistling Straits in Kohler, Wisconsin August 15, 2010. Germany#39;s Martin Kaymer held his composure to win his maiden major title in a gripping two-way playoff with American Bubba Watson for the 92nd U.S. PGA Championship at Whistling Straits on Sunday. With American Dustin Johnson having earlier been eliminated from the playoff after

Original post:
Martin Kaymer girlfriend Rina picture

Amanpour’s Panel Hails Obama’s ‘Courage,’ ‘Leadership’ and ‘Great Global Message’ on Mosque

President Barack Obama’s endorsement Friday night of building a mosque near Ground Zero has driven the establishment press corps to find nobility in pursuing conviction even in the face of public opposition, not something MSM journalists admired about the previous President, while suddenly becoming very concerned about protecting private property rights – all while hailing Obama’s “great global message.” “I thought the speech Friday night was a model of political courage, in the sense that he said what he believed knowing that it was going to cost him,” hailed Washington Post Associate Editor David Ignatius on ABC’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Picking up on Matthew Dowd’s suggestion Obama was echoing George W. Bush’s “it’s my way or the highway” attitude, Chrystia Freeland , global editor-at-large for Reuters, argued: Another way of talking about that is leadership, conviction, having your beliefs and not governing according to polls. And I think if you ask most Americans what kind of leader you want, if you ask people in the world what kind of leader do you want, you want someone who governs according to conviction….for American leaders to say in the face of, you know, some political pressure from their voters, to say actually we believe sufficiently strongly in diversity, in private property rights for our Muslim citizens, I think that’s a great global message. Ignatius, the Post’s former foreign editor and business editor and now a columnist on international affairs, backed Freeland, contending that doing what upsets Americans is good to do because it protects property right and pleases the world: I agree with that. I think that’s one of our strongest suits. As the world looks at us, if they see that the United States, even in an issue that hurts, and Ground Zero hurts, even on that issue, we still stand up for the freedom of people to dispose of their property as they want. That does count. When I travel, you travel Christiane, we hear comments about that America a lot. I think you shouldn’t minimize the benefits of saying to moderate Muslim, here you are. This upsets a lot of Americans, but we’re going to do it anyway. (Where were Ignatius and Freeland when the Supreme Court allowed eminent domain seizures of homes so local government could sell the land to developers?) In between, Amanpour worried the controversy over the mosque hurts Obama’s efforts to befriend Muslims and “so do you think it’s wise to have this huge hubbub over it, or it should just go forward, this mosque?” Amanpour fretted: I just want to ask you this, but it does go to the heart of what he’s  been doing since the beginning of his presidency, reaching out not just to the Muslim world but Muslims in general. He’s made a very important first interview where he said the United States could not afford to have yet another generation of Muslims viewing it as the enemy. So do you think it’s wise to have this huge hubbub over it, or it should just go forward, this mosque? Earlier in the program, Amanpour put forward Germany’s state capitalism as a model to emulate: “The big story out of Europe this weekend is that Germany has shown stronger than expected growth over the last quarter. Laura, you were saying something about how Germany had taught and trained its workforce to compete in these situations.” From Berkely, California, Laura D’Andrea Tyson, of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, asserted: “A major part of that is serious vocational training and very serious ongoing training for manufacturing workers in Germany.” She also trumpeted: “Germany manages to do this with a much higher tax rate than we do.” My previous looks at Amanpour’s This Week: From last Sunday: “ Amanpour Elevates British Journalist Who Sees ‘Culture of Hate’ in U.S., Time to Divide Up Our ‘Pie ’” Two weeks ago, reviewing Amanpour’s debut: “ Amanpour Slums to Take on U.S. Politics, Flummoxed Pelosi’s Victories Aren’t Better Appreciated ” A Friday (August 13) Daily Caller article by Caroline May, “ Amanpour’s ‘This Week’ continues to receive negative reviews as viewers express desire for Tapper’s return ,” included my assessment of Amanpour: Brent H. Baker, Media Research Center Vice President for Research and Publications speculated to The Daily Caller that Amanpour’s air of superiority has added to the poor reviews. “Viewer revulsion toward Amanpour is hardly surprising given her condescending attitude toward them,” he said. “In her first two shows, she’s acted like she’s deigning to explain the world to the uninformed rubes, aka Americans, watching, acting as if she’s slumming to help bring the world to the ill-informed Americans.” From the Sunday, August 15 This Week with Christiane Amanpour, segment with Laura D’Andrea Tyson, former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, Senator John Corker and Chamber of Commerce economist Martin Regalia: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Let me just quickly go to what you mentioned about being competitive with the rest of the world. The big story out of Europe this weekend is that Germany has shown stronger than expected growth over the last quarter. Laura, you were saying something about how Germany had taught and trained its workforce to compete in these situations. LAURA D’ANDREA TYSON: Right, well Germany has had a long-term commitment to manufacturing. And it has a very strong manufacturing base. It has a much larger share of economy in manufacturing than we do. A major part of that is serious vocational training and very serious ongoing training for manufacturing workers in Germany. And often times a German firm with German workers will retrain and use technology at home rather than offshore those jobs abroad. And I want to point out also that Germany manages to do this with a much higher tax rate than we do. I think there should be corporate tax reform. I agree with a lot of what Senator Corker and Martin Regalia [of the Chamber of Commerce] have said. But we need investment. I would say, in thinking about the share of government and GDP, something the Senator mentioned, we need to distinguish between investment spending by the government — whether it’s federal, state or local – and other spending. A dollar spent for infrastructure is different than a dollar spent for current operations. From the roundtable: MATTEW DOWD: …It feeds a broader narratively about him, which is, it’s my way or the highway. In many ways, to me, it reminds me of Bush, which is, “I don’t care what the American public is on this, I’m going say what is the right thing to do.” He’s done it on immigration in Arizona, he’s done it on this, he’s done it on health care. I think that’s the political problem he has. DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST. Why is that a problem for him? I thought the speech Friday night was a model of political courage, in the sense that he said what he believed knowing that it was going to cost him. The White House has stayed out of this issue knowing that it’s political poison. And I thought the President spoke to it fairly directly. This is America, people have a right to build on property that they own, even if it’s going to be a mosque near Ground Zero. I was sort of sorry that he was trying to walk it back in these more nuanced comments yesterday. CHRYSTIA FREELAND, REUTERS: I totally agree with David. And I think, you know, Matt, to the point of my way or the highway, another way of talking about that is leadership, conviction, having your beliefs and not governing according to polls. And I think if you ask most Americans what kind of leader you want, if you ask people in the world what kind of leader do you want, you want someone who governs according to conviction. And I do think this touches on, Christiane, the economic panel you had earlier. I think that it touches on in two important ways. This point about private property might seem like a parsing, but it is actually essential and  I think to have the President, and we had similar comments from  Mike Bloomberg, coming out and saying, actually, we believe that the rights of private property are so strong, we are not going to change them because the cosmetics are not- …. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: I just want to ask you this, but it does go to the heart of what he’s  been doing since the beginning of his presidency, reaching out not just to the Muslim world but Muslims in general. He’s made a very important first interview where he said the United States could not afford to have yet another generation of Muslims viewing it as the enemy. So do you think it’s wise to have this huge hubbub over it, or it should just go forward, this mosque? …. FREELAND: But let’s talk a little bit about the rest of the world. You know, I think that actually, the President’s comment, the comments by Mike Bloomberg are really an important message to the Muslim world. We’re talking about Pakistan later on. For these people — for American leaders to say in the face of, you know, some political pressure from their voters, to say actually we believe sufficiently strongly in diversity, in private property rights for our Muslim citizens, I think that’s a great global message.   IGNATIUS: I agree with that. I think that’s one of our strongest suits. As the world looks at us, if they see that the United States, even in an issue that hurts, and Ground Zero hurts, even on that issue, we still stand up for the freedom of people to dispose of their property as they want. That does count. When I travel, you travel Christiane, we hear comments about that America a lot. I think you shouldn’t minimize the benefits of saying to moderate Muslim, here you are. This upsets a lot of Americans, but we’re going to do it anyway.

Read more:
Amanpour’s Panel Hails Obama’s ‘Courage,’ ‘Leadership’ and ‘Great Global Message’ on Mosque

8 Dead in off road accident

“An off-road truck plowed into a crowd and scattered “bodies everywhere” moments after sailing off a jump at a California race Saturday, killing eight people and leaving 12 injured, authorities and witnesses said. The crash came shortly after the start of the California 200 race at the 8 p.m. PDT, San Bernardino County sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Bachman said.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38710643/ns/us_news-life added by: ThoughtNu

BAMF of the Day! (Best Bridge Burner Ever)

Say it with love,…..but say it with a white-board ( funny as hell ) Philip DeFranco Loves You –“We received the following photos last night from a person who works with this girl. Her name is Jenny (not confirmed) – we’re working our contact for Jenny’s last name. Yesterday morning, Jenny quit her job with a (flash)bang by emailing these photos to the entire office, about 20 employees we’re told. Awesome doesn’t begin to describe this office heroine. Check back as we will be updating if we get more details”. Link http://phillyd.tv/index.php/2010/08/10/bamf-of-the-day/ added by: remanns

No Booze Sundays So Lets Get Legally Stoned

Use of spice climbs in Northern Utah. OGDEN — With an increase in the use of spice, an incense smoked to get a high much like marijuana, government agencies are looking at ways to curb the use of the currently-legal drug in the Top of Utah. “There is a definite presence,” said Brock Alder, director of the substance abuse division of Bear River Health Department. “It's a real problem.” Spice, which is also known as Black Mamba, Bliss, or Bambay Blue, contains mostly damiana, a shrub with small, yellow flowers that grows in dry, rocky climates generally found in Mexico, California and Texas. The herb acts on the nervous system as an antidepressant to soothe anxiety, nervousness and mild depression. It has a reputation as a relaxant and an aphrodisiac. It is currently sold in tobacco shops and convenience stores as an incense, and is labeled that it is not meant for human consumption. However, many users buy the incense and smoke it, giving them a marijuana-like, but legal, high. While the drug may be bought and possessed legally, that doesn't mean users won't have to face consequences. Alder said that the health department recently began sending urine drug tests to a lab in California so they could be tested for damiana. He said they have done the testing for less than a month, but they already have had several tests come back positive for the drug. “Our policy here is, they can't use any mood or mind-altering substances, even alcohol,” he said. “We just want them completely clean so we know we have a clean brain (to work with during treatment.)” Capt. Klint Anderson, of the Weber County Sheriff's Office, said officers have seen an increase in people driving while under the influence of spice. “We're starting to see arrests for DUI impairment, and the drug of choice is spice,” he said. “It can be legally sold and possessed, apparently. That's where the problem comes in.” The problem is while police can observe someone driving erratically, and can witness them fail a field sobriety test, there is no way law enforcement can check their body fluids for traces of the drug, like they can with alcohol or illegal drugs. “If we have impaired drivers, we have no way to detect blood levels,” Anderson said. “It makes it that much more difficult to prosecute.” But that doesn't mean the officer won't cite the driver. “We still charge them with DUI,” Anderson said. “It just becomes more difficult (to prove in court.)” Anderson said the police department doesn't have access to any urine test like the Bear River Health Department does, but said they would like to be able to. “We'd like to,” he said about the possibility of a urine test. “We see it as a public safety risk.” Alder said that while the product is legal, little is known about the effect of the drug. Some clients have spoken of medical issues resulting from the spice, such as seizure-like symptoms or heart palpitations, but nothing has been documented yet. “Anything that is going to alter your mind is dangerous,” he said. “Too many people, when someone hands them something and says 'Try it,' they do. They need to find out what they're trying. They need to understand it's dangerous.” I agree, people shouldn't drive under the influence of anything but if this herb in fact does help people as an antidepressant, soothes anxiety, nervousness, mild depression as well as a relaxant and an aphrodisiac shouldn't it be looked at as a possible solution? However, I am not so sure that Utah is in need of an aphrodisiac! added by: JuliusBC

For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

As the anchor of MSNBC’s noon news hour, Contessa Brewer could not openly advocate for supporters of gay marriage – but she definitely seemed to give generous credence to their views on Thursday and Friday. Furthermore, she made snide comments about opponents of same-sex marriage, providing an opposition to their arguments but not seriously questioning proponents of same-sex marriage. Brewer obviously has strong views on this particular issue, and as a news anchor seems to have trouble keeping her personal opinions out of her news desk duties. In the little time allotted during each show to the same-sex marriage debate, Brewer hosted three pro same-sex marriage guests and none from the opposition. On Thursday, her guest was a retired female Presbyterian minister who is facing a church trial for conducting multiple gay marriages, having already been acquitted in 2008 before the Presbyterian Church (USA) Supreme Judicial Council. On Friday, Brewer hosted the two plaintiffs of the recent Proposition 8 court case, Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami – a homosexual couple hoping to marry soon. Brewer also marginalized the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents with snide remarks and loaded questions. “Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family,” she remarked on her Thursday news hour. “So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America?” When one of her viewers who opposes gary marriage wrote in that having two same-sex parents would “mess up the child development for life,” Brewer cynically quipped “I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.” On Friday, Brewer seemed to be pushing for a quick end to the stay on same-sex marriages in California, apparently using one of the Left’s favorite arguments in equating the current legal battles with the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s. “You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials,” she summarized. “So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied?” she asked, quoting the mantra of the civil rights movement. A transcript of both segments, which aired on August 12 and 13, is as follows: MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/12/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC anchor: A Presbyterian minister in [California] is facing charges from her own church. The authorities believe she violated the church rules by presiding over the weddings of gay couples. Her trial begins later this month in Napa, California, and Rev. Jane Spahr joins me now. Reverend, it’s good to talk to you today. Rev. JANE SPAHR: Thank you, Contessa. Great to be here. BREWER: You have been through this before in 2008, when you were acquitted, I understand, from marrying a lesbian couple. So what’s this renewed fight about in the Presbyterian church? SPAHR: Well the renewed fight is really about all these marriages that I did with so many of my friends who – they’re legal. They were from those dates from June 17th to November 4th in which the state has said “Yes, all these are legal.” So it’s been an amazing time to be able to marry so many of my wonderful friends. BREWER: What’s the official stance of the Presbyterian Church on same-sex marriage? SPAHR: Well there really isn’t a stance yet, there hasn’t been a ruling on that, so what it is, I think for me, is, as pastors, we should be able to marry the people who come to us, and that is, for me, I take over a year to meet with couples, to work with them, to talk with them about their love, and it’s been an amazing time to be able to do that. So what I say to people, “It doesn’t matter what your sexual orientation is. It matters to me that you have a healthy, just, loving, mutual relationship. So that’s why I meet with couples. So I say “It doesn’t matter to me.” What matters to me is that the church could be there to help people have the healthiest, most loving relationships. BREWER: Given your stand on this, and given that you have been a long-time advocate on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, do you think that you’re a good fit with the Presbyterian Church? SPAHR: Well I think every church has the opportunity to become open and welcoming, to really follow the founder of our Church, which said, “You all come, and be, and be who you are, and love who you are.” When people love who they are, then they can be free to serve in such a healthy and wonderful way. So I think it’s time for the churches to say “Welcome home.” BREWER: But given how many people base their opposition to gay rights on religious or moral principles, what would you say to them, and what would you expect to happen in this trial? Again, it’s a church trial, coming up later this month. SPAHR: Well again, people will be able to hear the stories of some 11 couples, be able to hear about their love, and to be able to know that we too are people of faith. We too are faithful people. We too care. My friends, Sarah and Sherry, the first couple that was ever named, I’ve been with them through all the things they’re bearing, their fathers, being with them to see their daughters raised, so it’s for people to see us as they really are. (…) 12:05 BREWER: Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family. So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America? (…) 12:52 BREWER: And Terrance thinks differently. He says “I believe if a child is raised around two fathers or two mothers that will mess up the child development for life.” I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.   MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/13/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER: In the meantime, good Friday the 13th. I’m Contessa Brewer, covering the big news, coast to coast. And on the West Coast, a massive tug-of-war is erupting over the gay marriage fight in California. Opponents want a federal appeals court to act now, before a hold on those weddings expires. …there will be mass confusion about whether the couples are indeed legally married. The judge’s decision to hold off ’till next week not going over well with some. (Video Clip) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’ve been here for two hours this morning, and we’ve watched so many straight people walk in and get married in front of us. It’s so “in your face,” that once again, “no you can’t.” (End Video Clip) (…) 12:01 BREWER: You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials. So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied? (…) 12:02 BREWER: Joining me now, Paul Katami, Jeff Zurrillo. They are the plaintiffs in the case to overturn Proposition 8. Gentlemen, good to see you. Let me ask you that question. Do you think justice delayed is justice denied? JEFF ZARRILLO: Martin Luther King said it very well, in his letters to Birmingham, justice delayed is justice denied, and that’s exactly what’s happening here.   BREWER: Do you have – do you think optimistic feelings about what happens now with the appeals court? Paul, weigh in. PAUL KATAMI: We’re absolutely optimistic. We know that we put on a fair and balanced court case. We won on the merits of that case, so now the law is on our side. We know that history is on our side, so it’s just a matter of getting to that finish line and we’re very confident we’ll get there. BREWER: You know, it’s interesting that the opponents who have filed the suit, guys, say that the judge’s decision that said voters made this Proposition 8 based on anti-gay morality, they said the judge’s statement was cruel because the people of California have actually enacted into law some of the nation’s most sweeping, most progressive protections of gays and lesbians. Do you feel protected in California? ZARRILLO: It’s really not about feeling protected as much as it is about separate, yet unequal, and that’s what we are, we are a separate yet unequal category. We are second-class citizens in the state of California. And what we really are looking for is just our equal rights, just like every other American is afforded at birth, according to our Constitution. KATAMI: I think it’s important to remember also that we’re not trying to create a new law or import a law into our Constitution. This was a law that was found in our Constitution, and so we are just trying to reiterate that that law belongs to us fundamentally, so it’s important to remember that our Constitution actually has this law in it. And we’re just wanting it to be applied to us. BREWER: Alright, gentlemen. Jeff, Paul, thank you both. I appreciate your time.

See original here:
For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

CBS ‘Early Show’: Nearly Five Minutes on Gay Marriage Ruling, One Sentence to Critics

In a report on Friday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent John Blackstone described the fallout of a decision by California Judge Vaughn Walker to lift his stay on gay marriages after overturning Proposition 8: “Inside San Francisco City Hall dozens of same-sex couples lined up for marriage licenses, anticipating their wedding day.” A headline on screen declared: “Save the Date.”   Blackstone explained how gay couples were still upset that the stay would not be lifted until August 18: “Despite a celebration here, these advocates know this may be just a temporary opening. And it turned out it wasn’t opened yet….Among the disappointed couples was one of those who filed the lawsuit challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage.” Finally taking note of critics of the initial Proposition 8 ruling and the lifting of the stay, Blackstone remarked: “The delay gives opponents time to appeal and a political issue.” The only sound bite of a critic was that of Maggie Gallagher from the National Organization for Marriage: “The extreme nature of this decision is, in fact, going to impact the elections in 2010.” Blackstone then concluded his report this way: “Polls show a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but in California, where there were 18,000 such marriages two years ago, plenty of wedding plans are now being made for next week.” He made no mention of the majority of Californians also being opposed. Following Blackstone’s report, co-host Harry Smith spoke with liberal George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley about the issue. While Turley described the judge’s decision as “very controversial,” he also made sure to tell viewers where he stood: “I actually support same-sex marriage.” Smith was puzzled by the delay in allowing gay marriage: “Why would the judge leave – well, open the window and then say, ‘okay, we’re going to close the window until next Wednesday’?” Turley replied: “Well, he’s actually doing a very standard and responsible thing….This is a controversial decision. And for the people on the other side of this debate, they should be entitled to make their argument to the court of appeals.” Later, Turley assured his fellow gay marriage supporters that allowing Judge Walker’s decision to be appealed would “add legitimacy to his opinion.”                              Here is a full transcript of the August 13 segment: 7:00AM TEASE ERICA HILL: Save the date. A California judge says same-sex couples will have to wait one more week to get married, allowing for an appeal to move forward. We’ll tell you why this could end up going all the way to the Supreme Court.         7:01AM SEGMENT HARRY SMITH: We begin with the court room battle over California’s same-sex marriage ban, the federal judge that threw that ban out now says that same-sex weddings can be held next week, unless higher courts get involved. CBS News correspondent John Blackstone has the story. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Save the Date; Judge Delays Same-Sex Weddings to Allow Appeal] JOHN BLACKSTONE: Inside San Francisco City Hall dozens of same-sex couples lined up for marriage licenses, anticipating their wedding day. Outside, a crowd gathered. The judge, who last week ruled that California’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, said he is lifting the stay he placed on that decision. Same-sex marriage in California has been on a roller coaster, sometimes legal, sometimes not. Despite a celebration here, these advocates know this may be just a temporary opening. And it turned out it wasn’t opened yet. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The good news is the stay is lifted. The bad news is the judge has said it’s lifted next Wednesday. CROWD: Aww. BLACKSTONE: Among the disappointed couples was one of those who filed the lawsuit challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage. JEFF ZARRILLO: We’re hopeful that we will be able to get married and we’ll be able to announce wedding plans as soon as possible. BLACKSTONE: The delay gives opponents time to appeal and a political issue. MAGGIE GALLAGHER [NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE]: The extreme nature of this decision is, in fact, going to impact the elections in 2010. BLACKSTONE: Polls show a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but in California, where there were 18,000 such marriages two years ago, plenty of wedding plans are now being made for next week. John Blackstone, CBS News, San Francisco. SMITH: And joining us now from Washington is George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. Good morning, sir. JONATHAN TURLEY: Hi, Harry. SMITH: Why would the judge leave – well, open the window and then say, ‘okay, we’re going to close the window until next Wednesday’? TURLEY: Well, he’s actually doing a very standard and responsible thing. What he’s doing is he’s giving the court of appeals a short period of time to review his decision and decide whether they want to impose a stay. Most federal judges will do that. In fact, if he didn’t do that, it’d be viewed as a little bit odd, if not aggressive towards the court of appeals. What he’s saying is, ‘look, I’m one judge. This is a controversial decision. And for the people on the other side of this debate, they should be entitled to make their argument to the court of appeals.’ SMITH: So what is the likelihood, then, a court of appeals would get involved in this by Wednesday? TURLEY: Well, they’re going to have to. I mean, they’re going to have to take a look at whether they want to impose a stay. And’s it’s going to be tempting for some of those judges. You know, this did overturn a majority of people who voted on the proposition. It’s a very controversial decision. Some judges might be inclined to say, ‘You know what? Let’s go ahead and stay this until other judges have looked at it.’ But what Judge Walker said in this opinion was I don’t see the irreparable harm being done to people by allowing people to get married. SMITH: Right. TURLEY: And he gave a very strong opinion saying, I don’t think this should be stayed by the Ninth Circuit. SMITH: If you are a proponent of same-sex marriage, how should you interpret this? TURLEY: I would encourage my friends on that side – and I actually support same-sex marriage – but I would encourage people on the side of same-sex marriage to understand that they benefit, in some regards, with – from Judge Walker’s move. He’s going to add legitimacy to his opinion. It’s not going to be just one judge. It’s important for this to be reviewed, to satisfy all parties that it’s not just one judge making his own decision, but that it’s going to be other judges making independent decisions of their own. SMITH: Right. Since this thing came down people have said this is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. Do you agree? TURLEY: Well, you know, as you know, you’ve been around a long time, it’s dangerous to predict when the court will accept something. They have actually avoided the same-sex marriage issue in the past, but if any case has a chance, it would be this one. By my count, there seems to be four justices on both sides of this issue, if you’re going to make an early prediction. And as usual, Justice Kennedy’s right in the middle. But Kennedy has been very sympathetic towards gay rights in the past. So, it would be a very interesting issue to go before this court at this time. SMITH: Jonathan Turley, we sure do appreciate your expertise this morning. Thank you very much. TURLEY: Thanks, Harry. SMITH: Alright, you bet.

More:
CBS ‘Early Show’: Nearly Five Minutes on Gay Marriage Ruling, One Sentence to Critics