(no subject)

[rm]

Patty and I had dinner with people last night. It was good and funny. It also tired us out. Tonight it's work, then laundry and packing and stuff for Chicago. All focus all the time. Also, yes, White Collar and Covert Affairs. More Buffy and Angel soon!

Oh hey, I made it to the final three in WIAD. Eeek. I feel like I'm on Project Runway, no challenge wins and going to Bryant Park.

Significant updates coming to my Dragon*Con schedule soon.

One-fifth of Pakistan is currently underwater.

Everyone should check out this piece on Tiger Beatdown that's actually several months old but I just got linked to today. It starts as a review of a book I have no desire to read because it sounds annoying. But the piece isn't really a book review, it's more about how we do discourse on the Internet. Note, I am not offering this to you in the spirit of "Oh, I have been wrong!" but in the spirit of "this sort of shit weighs on me all the time; there are no right answers more often than I'd like to think; sometimes I really hate myself; I try to do good; Good works -- very much including mine -- can be motivated by all sorts of things including spite and insecurity; God, there really is a lot of crap out there that needs to be called out; sometimes, this isn't fun anymore; please, tell me this is all hard for you too."

That said, check out Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on the Muslim Community Center slated for lower Manhattan. This is a long one, complex, and goes to a lot of places. In some ways its far from Olbermann's best rhetoric, because it's so all over place, but I respect its meanderings because he says a lot of things in it that are right to say, that another writer might have left out because it makes for a less efficient argument. It is also, among other things, in places a difficult listen, especially if you lost someone at the WTC. But it's worth listening to, all the way through.

Same-sex marriages on hold in CA -- the Ninth Circuit is in this now. I have no sense of the timeline on this. Anyone? (ETA: see first comment for answer).

New law allows sex-trafficking victims to clear their names.

The mystery of the khipus.

There's a ghost stroller in Brooklyn and no one is sure what it means.

Restoring the world's last surviving wooden whaling vessel.

The angry flight attendant already has reality TV offers: I TOLD YOU SO.

God, what the fuck with the throwing rocks at Tila Tequila? And hey, when she'd become a blonde?

Things I'm not linking too because they are from the department of the obvious: "Only children as social as peers" and "Teen sex doesn't always hurt grades."

I totally need this jacket, Y/Y? via jeliza.

Comments

[dsmoen.livejournal.com]

The initial brief addressing standing must be in by September 17. Note that the 9th can rule on the standing issue at any point after the brief is filed, even before the reply and answer are filed. Early rulings tend to be more common in the lower court, though.

That said, I can't think of a case offhand where standing has been quite this complicated in the 9th. When I was taking civil procedure classes, I read a lot of cases and motions, but few of them were appellate.

Though I agree with firefly_124, I think it's more likely that this particular case will lose on standing and thus apply only to California than it will offer standing and go all the way to the supremes in a way that's meaningful for LGBT rights for the entire country.

Of course, if the proponents lose on standing in the 9th, they can appeal to the supremes, and that may lead to a more general ruling. Let's just hope it's in the favor of equal rights if that happens.