. >> that's a fair point, judge rinehart. that is a distinction with respect to the issue as it came to the supreme court in baker. there had not been the earlier period in which the california -- the supreme court had essentially legalized same-sex marriage. so that is a fair point. >> the california court, sir, said that's what the constitution says. it said that as citizens, we have to accept that from that moment forward. it was not a matter of pulling rabbits out of a hat or something like that. they said, this is what the constitution says. >> your honor, that's fair enough. they said, this is what the state constitution says. but under the california system, it is the people themselves who retain all the sovereign political governmental power, and they are free to review that decision, to disagree with it, and reverse it. and that's what they did in proposition 8. so, your honor, we would submit to you that the case came to the people of california the same way the case came to the california supreme court. on review f

steven rinehart, probably the most liberal federal judge in the country. and i think the reason they narrowed it down is very much toward -- with an eye toward the supreme court. i think in one sense, they wrote it so narrowly there's a chance now that the supreme court won't even take this up on appeal. because they may feel, well, this only affects california. it's not really -- usually when the supreme court takes a case it's because there's a disagreement in different circuits throughout the country, like health care. that's not the case here. you can see that maybe the conservatives on the the court might be a little worried about anthony kennedy, where they would rule. they may not vote to stake it up. the liberals might just be happy not to have to rule on it quite so soon. there is that chance. fit does go to the supreme court, the fact that it's narrower and based on anthony kennedy's ruling in romer, and he also wrote the decision striking down sodomy in 2003. so i think they feel like if we target the argument right at him, that will help win hi

reclassify their relationships and families as inferiors to those of the opposite sex couples and quote rinehart went on to say that quote the constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort this is a big victory for equal rights in america and the bad birth of movement just won't go away to come the birth of barrage president obama released his birth certificate last april proving he was indeed an american citizen surprise surprise as a result a new poll by you gov shows that the overall number of birth there's as decreased drastically great news right now because while overall numbers have decreased republicans who believe president obama was not born in the u.s. has actually increased thirty seven percent of republicans that's more than a third think the president wasn't born in the u.s. it's a twelve percent increase since he released his birth certificate last year. it doesn't make any sense to me that. and the very very ugly karl rove in one of the most talked about ads of sunday's super bowl clint eastwood touted the resilience of the american workforce particularly particularly

judge stephen rinehart wrote the opinion opinion. it requires there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently. proposition 8 serves no purpose other than to lessen the status of gay and lesbian men in california. supporters of the same-sex marriage ban can either appeal to a larger ninth circuit court of appeals panel or directly to the u.s. supreme court. this is the oral argument that took place before the ninth circuit in had december 2010. it's about an hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning again, ladies and gentlemen. we'll proceed to the second half of this consolidated proceeding. perry versus hollings worth, perry and city of san francisco versus hollingsworth. good morning, mr. cooper. >> good morning, your honor. the people of california and americans tlouhroughout the couy are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the definition of marriage. the issue is a momentous one, for it goes to the nature of a ubiquitous institution that is fundamental to the very exi

say is morgan stanley who has a really interesting fed team now with david dwrenlaw and now vince rinehart who is a former top staff guy at the fed, they're writing and pounding every day the fed is about to to qe and they're talking about it as a preemptive strike. hopefully that's beginning to answer your question. >> yeah. an insurance policy. >> exactly. they're not going to wait for growth to weaken but i will tell you there's a bunch of other guys, joe this morning says the fed is nuts, that unit labor costs are beginning to rise, inflation is beginning to rise. some other folks who say the fed is misunderestimating the employment numbers. >> i will take the other side of the bet. they're going to do it in a way we would never think. >> still qe. >> they're telegraphing it, andrew. i have to tell you this. it's going to be mortgage backed securities. they're going to do it not necessarily for unemployment. >> mr. comiskey? >> yes? what did i get? >> as the game continues, there's a wall, you can pick from the wall -- >> i'll go with earnings central for $2.2 billion net income. the s