How many rights make a wrong, how many wrongs make a right

[emptystep]

For the first part, how many rights make a wrong, there are two possible correct answers. 4 or 228.
4

because that is how many are on the Republican Conference, namely John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Greg Walden, and James Lankford.​

228

because that is how many members of the House who voted on H.Res. 5: Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress. Introduced by Rep. Eric Cantor [R-VA7] on January 3, 2013 That is every single republican except Walter Jones of the 3rd district of North Carolina and not one democrat.​

For the second part all of the follow are part of the correct answer.
The rules for the most part were without contention. The wrong part as stated by Ariane de Vogue:
Boehner Bolsters Support of Defense of Marriage Act - ABC News

Today, House Republicans included DOMA language in the Opening Day Rules package authorizing the continued use of taxpayer funds.

A draft obtained by the Huffington Post reads as follows:

(1) CONTINUING AUTHORITY FOR THE BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP.

(A) The House authorizes the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the 113th Congress –

(i) to act as successor in interest to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the 112th Congress with respect to civil actions in which it intervened in the 112th Congress to defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7) or related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, United States Code, including in the case of Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012), aff'd, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012), cert. granted, No. 12–307 (Dec. 7, 2012), cert. pending No. 12–63 (July 16, 2012) and 12-ll (Dec.___2012);

(ii) to take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure continuation of such civil actions; and

(iii) to intervene in other cases that involve a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act or related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, United States Code.

(B) Pursuant to clause 8 of rule II, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters in which it appears, including in Windsor v. United States.

The proposed language reads: “The Bipartisan Legal advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of , the House in all litigation matters in which it appears, including in Windsor v. United States. ”

de Vogue points out:

Despite poll numbers showing the majority of Americans now support gay marriage, House Speaker John Boehner sent a strong message today authorizing the continued use of taxpayer funds to defend a federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Huffington Post also mentioned:
Defense Of Marriage Act: House Republicans Tie Federal Gay Marriage Ban To House Rules

Hammill also noted that the rules package "for the first time" explicitly states that BLAG speaks for the full House on DOMA matters -- something he said is definitely not the case.

Let's look at some reasons the above might be considered a wrong.

The amount might be one issue. As posted by Joel Connelly:
Republicans hide $$ to defend Defense of Marriage Act | Strange Bedfellows — Politics News - seattlepi.com

The Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have already spent $1.7 million in taxpayer dollars for legal defense of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). On Thursday, hidden in rules for the 113th Congress, they gave a blank check to fight for a law abandoned by the Obama administration and even some who once voted for it.

Might be the way it was presented to the House. Connelly continues:

The House did not get to vote on spending the money. The Defense of Marriage Act was not mentioned in the rules, which contained only an oblique, buried reference to “continuation of the independent bipartisan legal advisory group.”

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and aide Kinsey Kiriakos scoured the 23-page rules package on Thursday, hunting for the language authorizing and paying for the defense of DOMA. “Here it is, on page 17,” said the veteran Seattle congressman.

What also might be considered a wrong is the vechile with which House is using to enact this rule.
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2011, when President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), House Speaker John Boehner convened BLAG to authorize the House Office of General Counsel or other outside attorneys to take the place of the DOJ in defending the law.[10] On March 9, 2011, BLAG by a vote of 3–2 directed the Office of General Counsel to defend DOMA.[11] Attorneys representing BLAG filed a brief in U.S. District Court in San Francisco in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, opposing an action brought by a federal employee to invalidate Section 3 of DOMA under which health insurance coverage to her same-sex spouse was denied.[12] In Golinski and a series of lawsuits challenging DOMA, BLAG's role has not been limited to filing amicus briefs. Without opposition from opposing counsel, several District Courts have granted BLAG intervenor-defendant status.[13] In one DOMA case, McLaughlin v. Panetta, plaintiffs' attorneys asked the court to limit BLAG to filing an amicus curiae brief rather than participating as intervenor-defendant as it did in other DOMA cases. They argued that the House did not properly authorize BLAG to intervene and that BLAG's direct participation violated the separation of powers doctrine.[14] The DOJ also questioned BLAG's standing to appeal a District Court decision, relying on Buckley v. Valeo (1976).[15] Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has questioned the funding of BLAG's defense of DOMA.[16][17]

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court, in agreeing to hear another DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, asked the parties to address "whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case".[18][19] Article III of the U.S. Constitution restricts the judiciary to hearing cases and controversies, which the Supreme Court has long interpreted to require parties to a case to have a direct interest in the outcome, rather than the "generalized interest" that the Department of Justice claims BLAG has in the defense of DOMA. BLAG has countered, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Chadha that "Congress is ... a proper party" to defend the validity of a statute" in such circumstances.[20]

Well at least the House is fighting for something with is legally defensible. Maybe not according to David Lat.
Second Circuit Strikes Down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in an opinion written by a prominent conservative jurist, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, just voted to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The court issued its 2-1 decision just three weeks after hearing oral argument, which is extremely fast for a case of this complexity and importance….

UPDATE (11:55 AM): From Judge Jacobs’s opinion:

We conclude that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional. Judge STRAUB dissents in part and concurs in part in a separate opinion.

Lat also comments on who is getting paid by the American taxpayer to execute the legal battle.

Coming a few months after the Obamacare ruling, it’s another high-profile loss for former Solicitor General Paul Clement, one of the nation’s most talented Supreme Court advocates. When a lawyer as skilled as Paul Clement can’t successfully defend an act of Congress before the likes of Judge Michael Boudin (1st Cir.) and Judge Dennis Jacobs (2d Cir.), maybe it’s a sign that the law in question has some… issues?

One lose is not so bad, is it? Lat also comments on progress.

It would appear that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which is defending DOMA, has now lost at least six cases in a row — and spent about $1.5 million doing so.

If the republicans of the house were to argue against funding the rest of the Sandy relief bill, raising the debit ceiling, or any number of other issues on the biases that they are the responsible ones with tax payers money they want to look to what Carolyn Lockhead brought attention to.
GOP continues DOMA defense among first acts of new Congress | Politics Blog | an SFGate.com blog

Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, lambasted Republicans for not allowing an up-or-down majority vote on a stand-alone DOMA defense, instead of hiding it in the rules package.

“On this defining issue of our time, House Republicans are continuing to fight for discrimination and using the Rules package to make it seem as if all Members of the House feel that way,” Honda said in a statement.

Will this be a thorn in republicans side until they cease giving lawyers blank checks to argue legal cases they feel should be fought on moral grounds? Well, it just might be.

So in conclusion how many wrongs make a right? Apparently a lot of wrongs make the right.

 

[waltky]

Got this from an email friend...

Tale of two terrorists
April 18, 2013 - Columbia job for Boston bomber?

Somewhere near Boston early Monday morning, he packed a bomb in a bag. It was by all accounts relatively crude — a pressure cooker, explosives, some wires, ball bearings and nails . . . nails which, hours later, doctors would struggle to remove from the flesh of bleeding victims. His motive is unclear. His intent is not: It was to maximize injury, suffering, pain, trauma and, yes, death. Perhaps Monday’s bomber will be caught, perhaps not. Perhaps Monday’s bomber will be offered a teaching job at Columbia University.

(Some) justice, delayed: Kathy Boudin in police custody in 1983, years after committing her crimes.

Forty-three years ago last month, Kathy Boudin, now a professor at Columbia but then a member of the Weather Underground, escaped an explosion at a bomb factory operated in a townhouse in Greenwich Village. The story is familiar to people of a certain age. Three weeks earlier, Boudin’s Weathermen had firebombed a private home in Upper Manhattan with Molotov cocktails. Their target was my father, a New York state Supreme Court justice. The rest of the family, was presumably, an afterthought. I was 9 at the time, only a year older than the youngest victim in Boston. One of Boudin’s colleagues, Cathy Wilkerson, related in her memoir that the Weathermen were disappointed with the minimal effects of the bombs at my home. They decided to use dynamite the next time and bought a large quantity along with fuses, metal pipes and, yes, nails. The group designated as its next target a dance at an Officer’s Club at Fort Dix, NJ.

Despite the misgivings of some, it is reported that Kathy Boudin urged the use of “anti-personnel bombs.” In other words, she wanted to kill people not just damage property. Before they could act, her fellows were killed in the townhouse explosion. The townhouse itself collapsed; Boudin fled. She reappeared over a decade later driving the getaway car for the rag tag mix of Weathermen and Black Panthers who held up a Rockland County bank in 1981, murdering three in the process. Survivors of the ambush along the New York State Thruway recount how Boudin emerged from the driver’s door, arms raised in surrender, asking the police to lower their guns. When they did, her accomplices burst from the back of the van guns blazing.

As I said, people of a certain age remember this history. For those that don’t, Robert Redford is kindly about to release a movie recounting the Rockland robbery (albeit relocated to Michigan). By all accounts, the film lionizes the Weather Underground terrorists, Boudin and her accomplices. Perhaps to bring it full circle, Professor Boudin can soon guest-lecture at a film class at Columbia when the Redford movie is screened. Other than the passage of time, one can find no real distinction between the cowardly actions of last Monday’s Boston murderer and the terror carried out by Boudin and her accomplices. Yet today we live in a country where our leading educational institutions see fit to trust our children’s education to murderers and Hollywood sees fit to celebrate terrorists. The Web site of Columbia’s School of Social Work sums up Boudin’s past thus: “Dr. Kathy Boudin has been an educator and counselor with experience in program development since 1964, working within communities with limited resources to solve social problems.”

“Since 1964” — that would include the bombing of my house, it would include the anti-personnel devices intended for Fort Dix and it would include the dead policeman on the side of the Thruway in 1981. Maybe, if he is caught, Monday’s bomber can explain that, like Boudin, he was merely working within the community to solve social problems. Perhaps Monday’s bomber will be caught, perhaps not. Perhaps, some day, Monday’s bomber will be offered tenure at Columbia University.

John M. Murtagh is Of Counsel to the White Plains law firm of Gaines, Gruner, Ponzini & Novick, LLP. He lives in Westchester.

Tale of two terrorists - NYPOST.com

 

[tjvh]

For the first part, how many rights make a wrong, there are two possible correct answers. 4 or 228.
4

because that is how many are on the Republican Conference, namely John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Greg Walden, and James Lankford.​

228

because that is how many members of the House who voted on H.Res. 5: Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress. Introduced by Rep. Eric Cantor [R-VA7] on January 3, 2013 That is every single republican except Walter Jones of the 3rd district of North Carolina and not one democrat.​

For the second part all of the follow are part of the correct answer.
The rules for the most part were without contention. The wrong part as stated by Ariane de Vogue:
Boehner Bolsters Support of Defense of Marriage Act - ABC News

Today, House Republicans included DOMA language in the Opening Day Rules package authorizing the continued use of taxpayer funds.

A draft obtained by the Huffington Post reads as follows:

(1) CONTINUING AUTHORITY FOR THE BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP.

(A) The House authorizes the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the 113th Congress –

(i) to act as successor in interest to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the 112th Congress with respect to civil actions in which it intervened in the 112th Congress to defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7) or related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, United States Code, including in the case of Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012), aff'd, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012), cert. granted, No. 12–307 (Dec. 7, 2012), cert. pending No. 12–63 (July 16, 2012) and 12-ll (Dec.___2012);

(ii) to take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure continuation of such civil actions; and

(iii) to intervene in other cases that involve a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act or related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, United States Code.

(B) Pursuant to clause 8 of rule II, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters in which it appears, including in Windsor v. United States.

The proposed language reads: “The Bipartisan Legal advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of , the House in all litigation matters in which it appears, including in Windsor v. United States. ”

de Vogue points out:

Huffington Post also mentioned:
Defense Of Marriage Act: House Republicans Tie Federal Gay Marriage Ban To House Rules

Let's look at some reasons the above might be considered a wrong.

The amount might be one issue. As posted by Joel Connelly:
Republicans hide $$ to defend Defense of Marriage Act | Strange Bedfellows — Politics News - seattlepi.com

Might be the way it was presented to the House. Connelly continues:


What also might be considered a wrong is the vechile with which House is using to enact this rule.
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Well at least the House is fighting for something with is legally defensible. Maybe not according to David Lat.
Second Circuit Strikes Down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts

Lat also comments on who is getting paid by the American taxpayer to execute the legal battle.

One lose is not so bad, is it? Lat also comments on progress.

It would appear that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which is defending DOMA, has now lost at least six cases in a row — and spent about $1.5 million doing so.

If the republicans of the house were to argue against funding the rest of the Sandy relief bill, raising the debit ceiling, or any number of other issues on the biases that they are the responsible ones with tax payers money they want to look to what Carolyn Lockhead brought attention to.
GOP continues DOMA defense among first acts of new Congress | Politics Blog | an SFGate.com blog

Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, lambasted Republicans for not allowing an up-or-down majority vote on a stand-alone DOMA defense, instead of hiding it in the rules package.

“On this defining issue of our time, House Republicans are continuing to fight for discrimination and using the Rules package to make it seem as if all Members of the House feel that way,” Honda said in a statement.

Will this be a thorn in republicans side until they cease giving lawyers blank checks to argue legal cases they feel should be fought on moral grounds? Well, it just might be.

So in conclusion how many wrongs make a right? Apparently a lot of wrongs make the right.

All that ^ to tell us that you're upset with the fact that Republicans still have a say in how this country is run, boo f-in who. It's what happens when your party decides that gays and the War on Guns are the most important issues when reality dictates they are not. Cry me a river.