Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California Asks Judges: Gay or Straight?
weeklystandard.com ^ | 02/24/2012 | Daniel Halper

Posted on 02/24/2012 10:57:38 AM PST by massmike

In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation. The announcement was made in an internal memo sent to all California judges and justices.

Philip R. Carrizosa of the executive office of communications at the Judicial Council of California, the Administrative Office of the Courts, confirmed the authenticity of Price’s email regarding gender identification and sexual orientation to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The original bill, which simply provided for 50 new judgeships, was amended in the Assembly in August 2006, to address concerns that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not appointing enough women and minorities to the bench. In 2011, Senator Ellen Corbett expanded the reporting requirement to include gender identification and sexual orientation.

...as a result of Corbett’s 2011 California bill, the office has “expanded the collection and release of aggregate demographic data to include gender identification and sexual orientation.” Therefore, Price explains, judges and justices must reveal their “sexual orientation,” in addition “to their race/ethnicity [and] gender identification.”

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...


TOPICS: Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: california; homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 02/24/2012 10:57:49 AM PST by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: massmike; little jeremiah

homosexual agenda ping


2 posted on 02/24/2012 11:00:02 AM PST by massmike (Massachusetts:Stopped hanging witches;started electing Kennedys.Coincidence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike
The Radical Leftist Homosexual Agenda For America:

“From going to jail for doing it to going to jail for not approving of it.”

3 posted on 02/24/2012 11:01:05 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Better add another wing to The White House cause the Santorum clan is coming.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

How you use your private parts has now become more important than being of a sound mind.


4 posted on 02/24/2012 11:01:47 AM PST by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Why stop at requiring answers on questionnaires? I DEMAND VIDEOTAPED PROOF of sexual orientation. Of course, this will include video proof of LACK of “interest” in one gender or the other (unless the judge indicates bisexuality ... in which case, of course, we will need proof of THAT).


5 posted on 02/24/2012 11:03:45 AM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan

“Little head or big head”?


6 posted on 02/24/2012 11:03:52 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: massmike

instead of the litmus test we should call this the toilet paper test


7 posted on 02/24/2012 11:04:01 AM PST by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
Biology be damned!

...right?

8 posted on 02/24/2012 11:04:58 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Better add another wing to The White House cause the Santorum clan is coming.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

very little


9 posted on 02/24/2012 11:05:34 AM PST by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Is there a “none of your damn business” category?


10 posted on 02/24/2012 11:07:32 AM PST by forgotten man (forgotten man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

They need to know their sexual orientation and yet they are not supposed to let the public know their political orientation?....California is off the reservation!


11 posted on 02/24/2012 11:09:36 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

The false assumption is that in order to ensure a pro-homosexual decision you must promote one. But that skews the whole process as there are already plenty of representatives for homosexuals, who are not homosexual themselves! This only adds to the biased total.


12 posted on 02/24/2012 11:10:37 AM PST by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Sounds like the “Are you now or have you ever been affiliated with...” line of McCarthy-era questioning that the left loves to dwell on.

A judge is supposed to be objective. Their personal lives should be irrelevant. If the judges believe such questioning is appropriate, they should be denied being appointed as judges.


13 posted on 02/24/2012 11:10:46 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

They wouldn’t lie, would they?


14 posted on 02/24/2012 11:13:57 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike
Let me get the facts straight. Homosexuals make up 4% of the United States population and they need equal representation.

I wonder what % of Christians are represented on the bench? I believe they make up 80% of the population.

15 posted on 02/24/2012 11:14:53 AM PST by stars & stripes forever (Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Sooooo, how many homo CA judges are they going to FIRE to make things equal to the percentage of homos in “society” (or will it be reflective of CA or San Fran society)???


16 posted on 02/24/2012 11:18:05 AM PST by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan

Yes-—it is to destroy rational thought (Christian Paradigm)—reason and logic used to be essential for everything and the foundation of Just Law—now urges trump reason-—identity trumps reason—to destroy us from within.

The homosexual movement was founded by Hay who was sodomized as a boy and loved it—he was a Communist and wanted Man/boy “love” made legal.

Homosexual acts are ALWAYS evil—they demean the human body in nihilistic ways. We need to call sodomy Evil again—to regain not only logic and reason-—but Virtue—the Christian Virtue-—not the paganism of the Ancient Greeks, and Samurai and today’s muslims who sodomize boys for recreation.

We need Judeo-Christian Ethics which is the Foundation of Just Law—and Natural Rights from God. There is NO right to sodomy. It should not be encouraged by law since it promotes evil, demeaning behavior, never Virtue which is the reason for Just Law and Contracts.


17 posted on 02/24/2012 11:18:23 AM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Did you know California is the most conservative state in the Union?


18 posted on 02/24/2012 11:25:34 AM PST by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Queer judges judging in a queer way in a queer State from a Groinal viewpoint..
What could go wrong?..


19 posted on 02/24/2012 11:27:19 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

By who’s dope addled standards???


20 posted on 02/24/2012 11:31:33 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This mean Liberals and/or Libertarians (Same Thing) NO LIBS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

“Their personal lives should be irrelevant.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Incorrect. When anyone elects to run for public office, then their personal lives become very much our business.


21 posted on 02/24/2012 11:34:04 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This mean Liberals and/or Libertarians (Same Thing) NO LIBS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Can’t
Make
This
Stuff
Up....


22 posted on 02/24/2012 11:34:34 AM PST by jagusafr ("Write in Palin and prepare for war...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Just imagine the outcry if a CONSERVATIVE government demanded judges (or any government employees) answer the question, “Are you gay??”


23 posted on 02/24/2012 11:39:51 AM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

As long as they are law-abiding citizens and have not taken part in organizations that seek to destroy America and undermine our constitutional republic and they can be objective in their decisions, their personal lives are irrelevant.

I don’t care if a judge is pro-2nd Amendment or anti-2nd Amendment if they can rule objectively based upon the US Constitution on 2nd-Amendment issues. And I really don’t care what their sexual choices are, as long as their personal life does not compromise their ability to be objective and does not bring disrespect to their position. Congressman caught sending harassing, sexually-explicit texts and images should be removed from office for both of these reasons.

Unfortunately, activist judges tend to be liberal/leftist. And they believe the bench is where they can force their political and social agenda on the citizenry. Activist judges need to be removed from their positions.


24 posted on 02/24/2012 11:53:52 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
First of all, one must accept the fact, until the forever elusive “gay gene” can be convincingly contrived, that homosex is a behavior and since behavior is an arbitrary choice one must creatively stretch the limits of reason to justify special protections while assigning special privileges to those who indulge in capricious personal sexual acts.

Those who, from mental issues or physiological inadequacies, fear the homo sapien ultimate biological achievement of heterosexual love, the prime directive of the prime directive of species survival aka procreation, crave not only popular acceptance of their oddness but praise, forced if necessary by rule of law, of their deviant failings as some intellectual “art form.” or at the least "normal" for the superiors of the race.

Homosexuals are on average very smart—expert rationalizers— and affluent so the amoral Democrats recruit them because they have both the money and hate for moral clarity that is what the party always needs and what the party stands for.

25 posted on 02/24/2012 11:58:13 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Better add another wing to The White House cause the Santorum clan is coming.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

Robert Bork brings up an excellent point in “Slouching Towards Gomorrah.”

He explains the “Durkheim constant,” which is that a community will come to accept lower types of behavior until it becomes standardized. Moynihan called this “defining deviancy downward.” Krauthammer pointed out an odd paradox that, while this is occurring in American culture, there is another effect that is also occurring. He said, as you imply, that while Americans are allowing our moral standard to degrade, those who are degrading our moral standard are not content with just that, so what they are doing is redefining what has traditionally been the accepted moral standard as now being deviant.

If you spank your child, that is a form of abuse.
If you don’t have an agreement in writing from a sexual partner, you can later be accused of rape, and society will back the accuser.

And, as you stated, if you object to homosexuality and especially if you object to same-sex marriage, you are some sort of reclusive, repressed puritan that needs to be ostracized by the enlightened community.

Krauthammer called this paradoxical effect “defining deviancy upward.”

These are the brilliant minds that the left cannot debate, so they use the Alinsky method of ridicule to keep people from listening to them.


26 posted on 02/24/2012 12:00:04 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: massmike
One cannot really even satirize this sort of lunacy. The reality is actually worse than the typical satirical representation. But one can readily imagine the very serious intonations & concerned facial features of those discussing such "reforms" in the State Legislature.

William Flax

27 posted on 02/24/2012 12:11:53 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

I’m sorry, but because you do not care what a person’s values are, because you don’t care what their core beliefs are on a PERSONAL level; then you have no right to be outraged later when they act out their ungodly actions and express their personal perversions on a PUBLIC level.


28 posted on 02/24/2012 12:18:52 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This mean Liberals and/or Libertarians (Same Thing) NO LIBS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

Robert Bork brings up an excellent point in “Slouching Towards Gomorrah.”

He explains the “Durkheim constant,” which is that a community will come to accept lower types of behavior until it becomes standardized. Moynihan called this “defining deviancy downward.” Krauthammer pointed out an odd paradox that, while this is occurring in American culture, there is another effect that is also occurring. He said, as you imply, that while Americans are allowing our moral standard to degrade, those who are degrading our moral standard are not content with just that, so what they are doing is redefining what has traditionally been the accepted moral standard as now being deviant.

If you spank your child, that is a form of abuse.
If you don’t have an agreement in writing from a sexual partner, you can later be accused of rape, and society will back the accuser.

And, as you stated, if you object to homosexuality and especially if you object to same-sex marriage, you are some sort of reclusive, repressed puritan that needs to be ostracized by the enlightened community.

Krauthammer called this paradoxical effect “defining deviancy upward.”

These are the brilliant minds that the left cannot debate, so they use the Alinsky method of ridicule to keep people from listening to them.


29 posted on 02/24/2012 12:22:05 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

What would be your litmus test?

Seriously, think about it.

If we do appoint or deny positions based upon “personal values” what is going to be your test?

As I said, it is unfortunate that we’ve gotten to such a point of activism that we assume one’s personal life dictates their ability to be a judge, but that is not the case.

If we can reverse that and review judges on an annual or semi-annual basis to ensure they are making sound, objective decisions, then we will filter out activism and the personal life will not matter.

A perfect example is the homosexual judge who threw out the will of the people in California. Obviously, his personal life impaired his objectivity and he needs to be removed.

Had he put his personal desires aside and supported the constitutionality of that I&R legislation, would you similarly want him removed from office?


30 posted on 02/24/2012 12:25:49 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Robert Bork

One can only dream of how different things would be today with him,Scalia,Thomas,Alito,and Roberts on the Supremes.

Ted Kennedy continues to haunt America from his grave!

31 posted on 02/24/2012 12:31:51 PM PST by massmike (Massachusetts:Stopped hanging witches;started electing Kennedys.Coincidence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: massmike

WHY is this being done????????/

I scant 2.7% of the population is gay; only 1.7% lestbo.

So - what metric, exactly, will be used to ensure “enough” are on the bench?

And - after the Judge Vaughn Walker fiasco, in which gays generally demonstrated they are incapable of placing professional responsibility above personal activist agenda, wouldn’t it be better -— for our COUNTRY -— to use this data to ensure NO gays/letsbos are on the bench?


32 posted on 02/24/2012 12:35:27 PM PST by Ancient Wonderboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Homosexuality was a medically documented mental illness until enough homosexual psychiatrists—the Freudian discipline, surprise surprise, attracted deviants of all stripes—deemed the malady cured by the very first application of political correctness therapy.

Political Correctness is the “Magic Bullet” that the Left depends on to both curse and cure all their opponents and their sick followers respectively.

They are politically correct in Hell but not out of any obligation but out of respect.

33 posted on 02/24/2012 12:37:39 PM PST by Happy Rain ("Better add another wing to The White House cause the Santorum clan is coming.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Want to be a judge? Claim you’re gay.


34 posted on 02/24/2012 12:40:20 PM PST by BinaryBoy (ABRPRP - Anyone But Romney, Preferably Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

Had he put his personal desires aside and supported the constitutionality of that I&R legislation, would you similarly want him removed from office?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In a word. Yes.

You ask about a litmus test? How simple can we get here??

How about this as a litmus test? “Are you in favor of gay marriages? You are?”

BZZZZZZZZZ!!!!

“Nope. Sorry, you won’t do.”

Back to YOUR example of that activist judge. Thanks for proving my point. Here’s a question for you to ponder...

Do you know of any politician or judge that is wrong the the gay rights issues, yet is otherwise a fine conservative person? A person who can be counted on to be fiscally consrvative also?

I don’t.

A litmus test? Dude, I got hundreds of ‘em. And they all start with what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom which I mention because I used to have a tagline that drove the libs here at FR absolutely nutz:

“Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in the provacy of your bedroom is my business.”


35 posted on 02/24/2012 12:42:28 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This mean Liberals and/or Libertarians (Same Thing) NO LIBS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
Did you know California is the most conservative state in the Union?

You need to stop drinking before breakfast. Either you meant that sarcastically or you meant that California has more conservative people than any other state in the union, which is irrelevant and meaningless since 1 out of every 9 Americans lives in California, so numbers wise, it has the most of everything in California. Most millionaires, most illegal aliens, most priests, most astronaughts, most everything.

Now speakingo of average or per capita, then California is one of the most liberal socialist states in the USA.

36 posted on 02/24/2012 12:55:24 PM PST by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (THE Priority: Repeal Obamacare or lose your nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

Well, be careful what you ask for. If we return to “mental illness,” or even if we allow it to be accepted as “biologically determined,” then they will be protected under the ADA and just about every other ‘civil-rights based’ argument there is.

I believe homosexuality is a preference, a choice, and not one that is biological. It is therefore deserving of no special protections or civil liberties.

And, by the way, the call for same-sex marriage is not one of equality. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are all limited by the same marriage options (opposite sex, legal age, consensual, no current marriage, etc.). The same-sex marriage crowd is asking for ADDITIONAL or SPECIAL rights. They want to have the same set of options opposite-sex marriages have and they ALSO want to be able to marry people of the same sex.

I say, no special rights to homosexuals.


37 posted on 02/24/2012 12:56:05 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: massmike
The judges should all agree to write down trisexual.

Cheech & Chong's The Corsican Brothers (1984)

  

Louis Corsican: The Evil Fuckaire - he's trisexual!

Lucian Corsican: Trisexual?

Louis Corsican: Yeah, he'll try anything: men, women, goats, chickens, dogs, mud...


38 posted on 02/24/2012 12:59:31 PM PST by WMarshal (Where is the next Sam Adams?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

So post the full text of your “acceptability” test for judges.

I’d love to see that. I guarantee when you detail it, it will fall to pieces, which is why the requirements have traditionally been minimal and we typically look at resume, academic records, publications, and relevant experience.

But hey, if you want to deny a 2nd-Amendment-supporting judge the ability to sit on the bench simply because he does not believe that each and every American has the right to store boxes of grenades, then you just go right ahead with that train wreck of thought.


39 posted on 02/24/2012 12:59:31 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: massmike
"The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones"

--William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene II (c. 1599)

40 posted on 02/24/2012 1:10:37 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

But hey, if you want to deny a 2nd-Amendment-supporting judge the ability to sit on the bench simply because he does not believe that each and every American has the right to store boxes of grenades, then you just go right ahead with that train wreck of thought.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And you just go right ahead and list all the 2nd-Amendment-supporting judges you know who are also pro-gay rights supporting judges.

~crickets~

This ain’t hard Ghost. My “acceptability” test for judges begins with a simple letter after their name. Is it a L or an R?


41 posted on 02/24/2012 1:12:19 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This mean Liberals and/or Libertarians (Same Thing) NO LIBS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Well, first of all, if homosex is returned to it's rightful place as a mental illness where corrective therapy could make the “gay” actually factually gay that would mean that the evil Left has been defeated—just as the ban on the murder of the unborn would conclude the same.

We have four candidates who will fix our economic mess—we only have one who will fix the rest.

42 posted on 02/24/2012 1:13:36 PM PST by Happy Rain ("Better add another wing to The White House cause the Santorum clan is coming.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Will be of great help to the Mohammedans once California implements Sharia Law. Do these libs ever really how dumb their policies are?


43 posted on 02/24/2012 1:14:13 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

I was looking for that “semi-satire” tag often posted here from that website of the same name. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find it.


44 posted on 02/24/2012 3:00:20 PM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

What does L/R mean?
Libertarian or Republican?

Not sure what you’re saying, only Libertarians, only Republicans, or either, just no Democrats.


45 posted on 02/24/2012 3:22:27 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

lolol

I guess I should explain. R we know means Republican.

L means Liberal or Libertarian. Either one is the same thing as far as I’m concerned. Or I guess I should have used..

D for Democrat.


46 posted on 02/24/2012 3:29:36 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This mean Liberals and/or Libertarians (Same Thing) NO LIBS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Ah, I see.

So you are saying judges should only be libertarian or Republicans, but no Democrats? Or you are saying you only want conservative judges and no liberals?


47 posted on 02/24/2012 3:50:32 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Wait until they start requiring federal contractors to provide the same sort of “aggregate” data. They already have to supply the data on ethnicity, gender, and race. Supplying the data is supposedly voluntary, but I’ll bet if you don’t, your resume gets sent to the black hole. If you check non-latino white male, you’re chances of getting the job probably shrink, so that they can make their hiring profile match their applicant profile.


48 posted on 02/25/2012 12:33:24 AM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr
Can’t Make
This
Stuff
Up....

But don't you wish you had to make it up?

49 posted on 02/25/2012 12:37:32 AM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

How can someone who is anti-second amendment, possibly rule correctly on cases involving it. If by their writings, and prior decisions they have indicated that they don’t believe the second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, why would they rule that way in court?

Someone can be expected to rule against their own personal interests, but not their own beliefs and understandings of the Constitution.

In the case under discussion, I can envision someone who is homosexual ruling that the people have the right and the power to outlaw gay marriage. But i wouldn’t want to count on it in general.


50 posted on 02/25/2012 12:49:33 AM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson