Complaining about CA same-sex marriage ruling and "liberal activist judges," KHOW's Caplis omitted that Republicans appointed six of state's seven high court justices
Summary: Dan Caplis of 630 KHOW-AM claimed that the Supreme Court of California's ruling striking down the state's same-sex marriage ban was "a tremendous gift to John McCain" because it "will force people to focus on the reality" of "liberal activist judges." But Caplis failed to mention that Republican governors appointed all but one of the court's seven justices.
On his May 15 630 KHOW-AM broadcast, co-host Dan Caplis asserted that the decision that day by the Supreme Court of California to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage was "a tremendous gift to John McCain, and therefore, I think, a gift to America," adding that it would spotlight "liberal activist judges." Caplis later claimed that "everybody knows that conservative [judicial] appointees are not gonna create some constitutional right to gay marriage." In fact, Republican governors appointed six of the seven California Supreme Court justices.
In addition, Caplis echoed Republican talking points in suggesting that the court's decision "[e]ssentially strip[s] our democracy of any real meaning, because these judges are unelected, they're essentially unimpeachable, they're unaccountable." In fact, while California Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor, voters must confirm the appointments. As elected officials, the judges are also subject to recall.
From the May 15 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show:
CAPLIS: That California Supreme Court ruling, a tremendous gift to John McCain, and therefore, I think, a gift to America, because it will force people to focus on the reality of activist judges -- liberal activist judges who are going to, if they're put in a position to, decide every major issue of the day. Essentially stripping our democracy of any real meaning, because these judges are unelected, they're essentially unimpeachable, they're unaccountable. But they're going to decide these issues that should be decided at the ballot box by inventing constitutional rights. So, thank you, California Supreme Court. And you know, folks can say, well, Barack Obama says he's not for gay marriage, et cetera, but he's certainly for liberal activist judges. And everybody knows that conservative appointees are not gonna create some constitutional right to gay marriage, and the vast majority of people in America, including a majority of Democrats, are opposed to gay marriage.
In suggesting that "liberal activist judges" were responsible for California's same-sex marriage ruling, Caplis failed to point out that Republican governors appointed all but one of the seven justices serving on the state's supreme court: Gov. George Deukmejian (R) appointed Associate Justices Joyce L. Kennard and Marvin R. Baxter; Gov. Pete Wilson (R) appointed Associate Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Ming W. Chin and Chief Justice Ronald M. George; and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) appointed Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan. Only Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno was appointed by a Democrat, Gov. Gray Davis.
A May 16 Los Angeles Times article reported, "The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental 'right to marry' that extends equally to same-sex couples." The Times also noted that George wrote the majority opinion, "joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno. All but Moreno were appointed by Republican governors."
Contrary to Caplis' suggestion that California Supreme Court judges are "unelected," "unimpeachable," and "unaccountable," the California Supreme Court's website states, "One Chief Justice and six associate justices are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The appointments are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms." Moreover, California Supreme Court justices may be removed from office through the state's recall procedures.
—C.H. & J.F.B.
to listen to this audio clip
Comments (17) Show
1 - 17 |
More cheap logic from an "activist" lawyer, liar, and Catholic "man of the year" who makes his living defending drunks who drive.
CMM, thanks. Great work deconstructing this hack piece by piece. BOOF's right too. sniffer makes his living as a liar for hire. IF he runs as the sniffing Senator candidate in 2010, every blatantly false, hate filled diatribe he ever ranted is going to get rammed down his throat. Keep listening, CMM. I'll keep reading.
Second that LETKEMANN.
Does it matter who appointed these judges? The point is, they have acted aginst the will of the california voters who voted 61% aginst this measure. Even one of the disenting judges stated that he was for gay marriage, but that this was the wrong way it get it done. The court should inforce the law, not create it.
So, an activist judge is one that rules against your position? That was the DISSENTING judge. Where were you when the Supreme Court stopped the re vote in Florida 2000? Later we found out Gore won there. The court created the law in that one, they didn't enforce it. But that's different how? The Court refused the Plame complaint a few months ago. They overlooked massive evidence of treason. They created the law in that one, they didn't enforce it. Were those decisions "activist judges'" decisions? In redworld a "strict constructionist" judge is one that ALLWAYS decides on the red side. An "activist" judge has a record of deciding in favor of the conservative position less than 100% of the time. Flawed, but most typical.
Great points and good examples, Letkemann. This is the wrong thread to mention it, but it was nearly hilarious to hear Rosen say on Friday, I believe, and to paraphrase him, that conservative judges only become activist judges when they try to correct a wrong as they see it. What arrogance. What an encapsulation of myopic so-called conservative thinking.
But wait folks, the ever-present Caplis theme of being too-clever-by-half continues! Nearly moments after Caplis says ‘If you want to call anyone a liar on this show, back it up or pack it up’, Caplis spins the old yarn that he is a ‘genetic freak’, which I won’t disagree with, and that a few beers may buzz him, but he can drink ‘as much whiskey as you can put in front of him’, and it wont show/affect him, and he says of himself ‘I have that capacity’ to drink any amount of whiskey.
CAPLIS, YOU ARE A LIAR. L-I-A-R. Caplis also says calling anyone a liar is serious. Caplis, you are a LIAR.
Silverman gently tells Caplis to put up or shut up to such a preposterous notion, and of course, Danny Boy brings it back to the children as a bad example, and doesn’t accept the offer to drink on-air for all to see. It couldn’t really be because you are full of crap, would it, Dan? Just because an old legal friend gave you watered down whiskey because his light-weight, skinny friend can’t hold his liquor and so they can BS after hours doesn’t mean you can put away whiskey in defiance of human physiology, you dolt, Dan.
There are so many more serious breaches of decency and ethics, but Dan never disappoints in his weird deception. So put up or shut up, Dan. Drink a bottle of whiskey on air, dumb*as. Back it up or pack it up, Caplis.
This is a small insight into why Caplis is the worst of the politicians, the worst of the political hacks. When a politician lies to us, he is also asking us to accept the consequences of his lie.
When Caplis lies to himself, he is expecting us to go along with his pathology, and then his lie. To translate that into Caplis-speak, for any neo-cons out there: He thinks you are stupid. Just my opinion.Caplis endorsement/plugola update:
Caplis is still at it, using the public airwaves to tout his own law practice. I’m sorry to see Silverman getting more into this act as well. Caplis has already admitted to plugola, as previously mentioned. Plugola is unethical and against FCC rules, whether they are enforced or not, by Clear Channel and the FCC.
But dear-ol-Dan again touted his law practice during a Chevy commercial awhile back. This time, Dan talked about going to a remote Colorado town to do his legal/lawsuit work, driving his free Chevy Tahoe. And what a shock: He loved the Tahoe, and even managed to be pulled over for speeding. Is Caplis putting on a folksy spin to his endorsement deal? Certainly. But remember, radio listeners and Chevy buyers: Caplis managed to work into a paid commercial a purposeful mention his very own commercial endeavors, using your time and even your money, if you buy a Chevy. He’s driving a free Chevy to do his main profession. This is the profession where he self-proclaimed that if Colorado tort laws changed somewhat raising lawsuit caps (which he also touted on-air), he said he would make much more than hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra fees. Don’t you think he should be driving a law firm car doing law firm work? He presumably and certainly can afford it. And if his law firm and partners are getting more enriched by Caplis driving a Chevy you help pay for, instead of a company car, is that fair? Sure, General Motors wants Caplis to tell everyone how great Chevy’s are, but does this really pass the smell test, considering how ethical Dan wants you to believe he is? Caplis will certainly tell us incessantly about piling the little leaguers into the SUV, but should he drive this vehicle out to do lawsuits, maybe even securing a big fat out-of-court settlement against your very own insurance company, presumably raising your insurance rates, let alone the price of your Chevy?
This is all going on while General Motors LOST $3.25 BILLION DOLLARS in the last quarter, and they LOSE $690 FOR EVERY CAR they sell in North America. And a rich lawyer gets to drive a free one to go do legal work, while parsing his fuel economy statements, and even speeding in that rolling mass of metal that he’d love to sue others for doing if they caused an accident!? Unseemly. And Chevy buyers: You are paying for it.
Not to mention that Caplis says porn hurts families, and supports Focus on the Family’s push to remove pay-porn from Marriott Hotels…..and all the while Caplis endorses ProFlowers, who’s parent company is one of the larger pay-porn suppliers. Well done Dan, in showing your true character and principles. Oopps, I did just mention it. Just my opinion.
Interesting info NEWMAN. More proof of this clown's hypocrisy and self enrichment at the expense of others less well off. I agree with you concerning Silverman. Then again he may be joining the "ACT" for reasons not unlike the "Sniffers".
NEWMAN, outstanding. Whatever you do, KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK! Gotta wonder if sniffer has any idea that you're on his case. Must not, or he'd be too ashamed to continue his slimy behavior. Oh wait, sniffer has no shame. Anyway, thanks for you posts.
Letkemann, re: continuing to post, thanks and I intend to as time permits. To somewhat parrot what Caplis continually says about Obama, I hope to continue to expose Caplis for the deceptive, devious person that he is, and because he is bad for Colorado. Dan’s messiah complex is out of control, as is his lack of objectivity and loss of fairness. I’ll try to continue to bring facts out that some may not have heard about Caplis, until the final votes are counted in the 2010 senate race, and Dan’s name is NOT on the ballot. (Though watching him fail miserably would be nice). I know you see little chance of him running, but any chance is a Colorado tragedy. And to continue to mimic Caplis thinking, I’m doing this because this is about right and wrong…I’m right and everyone opposing me, especially Caplis, is wrong. Ha! Just kidding. I don’t have the Caplis arrogance down pat, yet.
Related to the same sex marriage ruling in California that Caplis laments, Dan insidiously said in October of 2006 that no gay rights hatred is coming from the conservative side. Yeah, sure, Dan. He was also ticked off at Silverman for saying that Caplis says kids are not served well by having gay parents. Caplis was indignant (what’s new), and said “I defy you to find one bit of tape where I say that kids aren’t served well by gay parents!” Typical parsing by Danny Boy. He knows very well, in my opinion, that he says something very close to that all the time, just not those exact words. It is one of his tactics. He gives even lawyers a worse name.
But it gets even better. In the SAME show only an hour later, a gay caller, who is in a monogamous relationship, recounted his adoption of five kids, all siblings who were abused and mired in the foster care system. When this caller defended gay couples as being equal in their ability to be good parents, and certainly in his case where these children were courageously adopted, and where the male-female biological parents were not good parents at all. Caplis was completely condescending to him, and said, “Give me a flippin’ break” in response. The caller added that he wanted his kids to be healthy productive citizens, and was not interested in preferring any sexual orientation for them, except only to avoid the discrimination he felt as a gay man. Caplis responded to this honorable man, ‘Maybe you don’t love those kids as much as I thought you did.’ What a jerk Caplis is. (That’s not name calling Danny Boy, that’s just a good descriptor.) Caplis retracted the horrible comment, but he said it. Caplis says he never said that kids weren’t served well by gay parents? ‘Maybe you don’t love those kids as much as I thought you did’ comes close enough. Caplis should be giving us all a flippin’ break from such bigoted comments. So we have another Caplis tactic: Say the most horrible things about others, but follow it up with a throw-away and rote ‘I hire gays, I represent gays, I’ve had gay roommates’ type of comment to falsely inoculate himself, and retract his utter rudeness nearly never. What a great guy and model citizen (cough). Just my opinion.This is unfathomable. Honestly, sniffer has got to have something very, very wrong with him. And for the record, we've got PLENTY of MAJOR problems in our great nation, and I could go on infinitum about how the very people sniffer pimps are at the root of them, but gay people aren't the cause of any of them. sniffer is at best a mean spirited homophobic, at worst, and in my opinion VERY possible, a person with some very disturbing hangups and secret thoughts, maybe fantasies ....about gay people. Am I being clear enough? The ONLY time a person's lifestyle is a topic of disdain for me is when someone denigrates those with the same predilections as him/her. This back and forth sniffer engaged in with a father of 5, who had the stones to call sniffer's show, once again shows that he's a 2-bit carnival huckster and a bully behind that mike. Too cowardly to defend his nation, constantly tooting his own horn, embellishing every story he's involved in, this guy is an emotional train wreck waiting to happen. Thanks for the info, NEWMAN. Will we be whistling the soundtrack to the movie "Sniffing Senator" in 2010? Not likely. FYI, oil boy is heading toward a major campaign meltdown. Would the gop consider sniffer as his fill in against Udall in November? My opinion is no......the last thing the voters will go for this time is a far right wing elitist millionaire christian homophobic hothead that advocates never ending war in the middle east and absolute power for the executive branch (as long as it's red).
Hi Letkemann,
Re: Are you being clear enough? Lol, absolutely. That was pretty unequivocal, unlike Caplis who equivocates all the time, and then says he doesn’t (examples, Obama’s loyalty to America and Obama’s Christianity—Caplis says he’s never called Obama un-American or unchristian, but calls this into question all the time). I’m sure he’d refute your opinion, but Caplis strangeness does migrate into his sexuality, which he seems obsessed with talking about on his ‘family show’. Examples? Implying just last week that his maleness, which he often called a ‘male package’, needs a wide angle lens to go through a graphic full-body airport security scan, after he already done the male size subject to death in the past (is he protesting too much?) It seemed in the past that if he wasn’t talking about the size of Mike Tyson, he was talking about the size of himself. I’m not sure what he was afraid of, but he refused to watch the movie ‘Brokeback Mountain’, but was able to criticize it in excess without gaining knowledge about it for his show. Caplis says it is in bad taste to talk about past sexual conquests or dating before marriage with your spouse, but he has made that subject and the implication a staple on his show (toned down some of late), especially when he wants us all to believe he was spreading his DNA all over Boulder County. He won’t mention it to his wife, but spreads it all over the airwaves? Would he like Mrs. Caplis to do the same if she had a radio show?
One of his more interesting Danecdotes was when he said he walked in to the Boulder Safeway in his earlier days, only to see two or three of the women he dated at the time, and that he picked up in the food isles. All these women were at the same checkout line, and the checkout clerk was someone he dated, too. Maybe he should have been banned from Safeway for stalking the isles. But putting aside the mathematical possibility of any of that being completely true or if actually it was just more Caplis bluster, his need to say such things is more interesting. Heck, Caplis even said if he didn’t meet and marry Aimee Sporer, he is certain that he would now be a priest, despite being a presumably wealthy lawyer and enjoying the company of many women. What?! Humm… Priesthood or Aimee Sporer…priesthood or Aimee Sporer…I can do that math, and what Caplis says doesn’t add up, sometimes. And thank you, Aimee Sporer, for keeping the population under control or Dan from politicizing from the pulpit, which ever would have happened without you. Combine all this with another Danecdote about him walking naked and exposing himself around a swimming pool in high school (presumably by accident, however you do that), obsession with discussing his normal high school sexuality issues, as well as graphically broadcasting other high school sexuality forums, and other examples, and it really is a murky subject.
This guy really might be that train wreck you mention, but at the least he is what I believe to be an amoral (vs. immoral) exhibitionist, who is constantly preening himself and his ego with the need for constant attention and what ever else gives him his jollies. He adorns himself with an on-air marriage proposal to his wife. He adorns himself with salacious personal information on the airwaves. And all the while he appears to me at least, as more interested in giving the impression of his current state of correctness, morality, wholesomeness, idealization, and superiority—In other words portraying a ‘livin the dream’ trophy life—vs. any reality. And this guy wants to be your senator. Just my opinion.Letkemann, sorry, I did want to briefly mention, regarding your comment ‘FYI, oil boy is heading toward a major campaign meltdown’: I don’t keep up with all the politics going on, but in case you didn’t hear Schaffer on Caplis’ show April 21st, it was interesting.
First, Caplis defends Schaffer over the Abramhoff/Mariana Islands/China free trade/ forced labor/forced abortion/human rights abuses flap. Caplis says Schaffer supports China free trade, “In order to stop the bad things that China” does. Caplis says interacting with China will “get the positive relations and freedoms and liberation that comes from interactions.” even though they have forced abortions. Caplis also said “If you isolate China you won’t have any real chance of improvement.” But Danny Boy won’t go for high level talks with Iran to accomplish positive relations, freedom, liberation, and stop the isolation that will help avoid a nuclear conflict?!. Nice consistency, Dan, especially since abortion and human rights are one of your cornerstones. Nuclear conflict is not?
Regarding what the Denver Post says was a Schaffer trip to the Mariana Islands partially arranged by Jack Abramoff’s law firm, and Schaffer’s meeting with clients of that firm, and what Silverman calls strings being pulled by Abramoff for sweat shops: Schaffer said on Caplis/Silverman: That he accepted the trip that was paid for by a Christian organization; That he himself organized the trip; That he decided his schedule, and picked the places he would see and the organizations he’d meet with. “I picked those meetings, nobody else did”, Bob said. Schaffer said he visited factories based on human rights reports done by government organizations as well as non-government organizations, and it would be interesting what non-government reports he relied on. Schaffer said he decided which settings he was going to see.
If there was any obfuscation or parsing in any of those unequivocal comments, I’d agree he may be in trouble.
If he’s in real trouble, I agree Caplis wouldn’t step in this go-round…he’s got a lot more posturing and a** kissing to do at the GOP. Just my opinion.One more thing for now: In the wake of Caplis doing a solo show on Memorial Day, where Caplis showed, as we all do, thanks and respect for our troops, please remember how he treated one military man: 3-star General William Odom. Caplis says he always shows guests respect. He is a liar. When General Odom was on a the show a few years ago, Caplis called Odom’s dire concerns about the Iraq strategy and remaining in Iraq ‘goofy’, ‘ludicrous’, and ‘hogwash’. I’ll dig up more exact comments should anyone want them, as many of those grave concerns by Odom have come to pass. As a former NSA director under Reagan, with a 31 year career in military intelligence, and various professorial duties, he deserved respect from Caplis, and the General didn’t receive it. Caplis was completely demeaning and disrespectful because the General wasn't lock-step with Bush and the republican party line. Remember this when Caplis continues to preen his reputation as being a respectful, fair, patriotic, support-our-troops kind of guy, when it is other people’s sons who are dying or maimed.
This guy Caplis constantly says he gives people the benefit of the doubt, which is laughable. He also constantly says he doesn’t want to be judged by his worst moment. The problem is that this pathetic senator wannabe has way, WAY, too many worst moments. Judge for yourself, and just my opinion.As always, please pardon the editing and many typos, including isles vs. aisles above, best
NEWMAN, great posts, and thanks for the info on oil boy's on air visit with sniffer. Strategically, that's a loser for sniffer. He's gonna want some distance from the lubricated one. OR..........he's never gonna run. It's all just more of his carny schtick.
I'm not worrying about the bridesmaid dress in a same-sex marriage.. but who's gonna wear the bridal dress?! :)) I don't agree with this kind of marriage, because I find the people that do something like this .. not normal.
1 - 20 |